AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 4, 2014 11:33:25 GMT -5
It's remarkable that so many otherwise intelligent people are so obsessed with the supposed unfairness of rich people driving Bentleys, that they miss the fact that in tbe United States, so many poor people at least own a Chevy. Sometimes due specifically in part to a system which mostly leaves people alone to achieve the ability to pick any car they choose. It's equally mystifying that people think health care exists on a separate metaphysical plane where the laws of economics do not apply. Healthcare works no.different than cars. And to the extent that liberals understand on some level the reality that we can't just give everyone a Bentley, they seem to rejoice at the thought of forcing everyone into a Yugo. This of course completely ignores the benefit we all get of driving much better Chevys, Fords, Hondas, Toyotas- even Hyundais- because some can shell out for the Caddy, Lincoln, Lexus, or Genesis / Equis. WTF does a Bentley owner have to do with healthcare?
And WTF does the fact that our 'poor people' have a car, a refrigerator, electricity, etc. have to do with anything?
Healthcare is nothing like cars and you know it- but you persist to treat it as a common purchase. I get it- in your world only people that can afford healthcare get it and fuck everyone else. Time to canonize St. Paul. You go Christian soldier!
No, healthcare is like cars, and eyeglasses, and cheese, and lawnmowers, and televisions. The free market can deliver healthcare just like it does everything else- steadily better, with steadily declining prices. True, not everyone would get the same level of care, but because some people can afford the very best, the experimental, etc. the rest of us get better than we'd otherwise get. We can try one-size-fits-all rationed care from bureaucrats delivered with the compassion of the IRS, and the efficiency of the post office, but I would prefer we let the free market deliver miracles instead.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2014 11:45:34 GMT -5
The source is not IBD. The source is the nation's third-largest health insurer. IBD is merely the messenger. If you have information that contradicts the messenger, you're welcome to share it. Otherwise, my post is fact, and your post is merely deflection. source of what? the opinion? no, that was IBD. source of the data? that was not a health insurer. it was PW. how the data is presented is important. if you don't think so, i couldn't care less.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Sept 4, 2014 12:14:32 GMT -5
WTF does a Bentley owner have to do with healthcare?
And WTF does the fact that our 'poor people' have a car, a refrigerator, electricity, etc. have to do with anything?
Healthcare is nothing like cars and you know it- but you persist to treat it as a common purchase. I get it- in your world only people that can afford healthcare get it and fuck everyone else. Time to canonize St. Paul. You go Christian soldier!
No, healthcare is like cars, and eyeglasses, and cheese, and lawnmowers, and televisions. The free market can deliver healthcare just like it does everything else- steadily better, with steadily declining prices. True, not everyone would get the same level of care, but because some people can afford the very best, the experimental, etc. the rest of us get better than we'd otherwise get. We can try one-size-fits-all rationed care from bureaucrats delivered with the compassion of the IRS, and the efficiency of the post office, but I would prefer we let the free market deliver miracles instead. The problem is the rest of us would not necessarily get what we would otherwise. Healthcare is freaking expensive if you have a severe or chronic condition. I guess it comes down to what you believe. Personally, I believe that the richest country on earth can ensure that everyone gets a basic level of healthcare. And IMO that means more than the freedom to visit the ER in an emergency. If you are fine with a person with MS not getting decent meds because they can't afford them & a person with asthma visiting the ER every other week because they can't afford the maintenance meds that would keep them healthy, then that is your opinion. My opinion is that isn't good enough & we can do better. Really our disagreement isn't with facts, but our opinion in what is "good enough" for the poor.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 4, 2014 15:12:07 GMT -5
The free market gives the poor better products and services in every other area than government could possibly provide. Healthcare isn't magically different than everything else. The free market would deliver to the poor the best health products and services it is possible to provide- just like it does in every area of life it is allowed to function unmolested.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2014 15:18:11 GMT -5
The free market gives the poor better products and services in every other area than government could possibly provide. Healthcare isn't magically different than everything else. The free market would deliver to the poor the best health products and services it is possible to provide- just like it does in every area of life it is allowed to function unmolested. which is why, of course, the ACA is not delivering "healthcare".
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 4, 2014 15:23:50 GMT -5
The free market gives the poor better products and services in every other area than government could possibly provide. Healthcare isn't magically different than everything else. The free market would deliver to the poor the best health products and services it is possible to provide- just like it does in every area of life it is allowed to function unmolested. which is why, of course, the ACA is not delivering "healthcare". No, but proponents pretend it will, because the regulatory machine is being used to force insurers to cover everything, and without limit.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Sept 4, 2014 15:38:32 GMT -5
The free market gives the poor better products and services in every other area than government could possibly provide. Healthcare isn't magically different than everything else. The free market would deliver to the poor the best health products and services it is possible to provide- just like it does in every area of life it is allowed to function unmolested
I was really enjoying how the free market had stepped up to provide health insurance for the 47 million Americans that didn't have it until the ACA came along and screwed it all up. Now only 35 million of those folks have the benefits of free market health insurance directed at them. The rest are stuck being insured by the ACA. Of course the free marketeer Repo governors of the 24 states that haven't cooperated with the ACA and allowed state exchanges are still representing those millions in their states by preventing them from getting screwed by the ACA and leaving them uninsured for the free market to help.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2014 15:49:30 GMT -5
The free market gives the poor better products and services in every other area than government could possibly provide. Healthcare isn't magically different than everything else. The free market would deliver to the poor the best health products and services it is possible to provide- just like it does in every area of life it is allowed to function unmolested
I was really enjoying how the free market had stepped up to provide health insurance for the 47 million Americans that didn't have it until the ACA came along and screwed it all up. Now only 35 million of those folks have the benefits of free market health insurance directed at them. The rest are stuck being insured by the ACA. Of course the free marketeer Repo governors of the 24 states that haven't cooperated with the ACA and allowed state exchanges are still representing those millions in their states by preventing them from getting screwed by the ACA and leaving them uninsured for the free market to help. i believe that five of them have caved. 31 states + DC will have MC expansion by year end. if you missed this, so did most people. at least two of these cave-ins happened in the last WEEK.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Sept 4, 2014 15:55:36 GMT -5
Just as a point of reference, but US health care was not even close to a free market before the ACA.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 4, 2014 16:59:56 GMT -5
Just as a point of reference, but US health care was not even close to a free market before the ACA. no. approximately half of all health insurance was publicly administred before the ACA. same amount as afterwards.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 4, 2014 22:05:21 GMT -5
The free market gives the poor better products and services in every other area than government could possibly provide. Healthcare isn't magically different than everything else. The free market would deliver to the poor the best health products and services it is possible to provide- just like it does in every area of life it is allowed to function unmolested
I was really enjoying how the free market had stepped up to provide health insurance for the 47 million Americans that didn't have it until the ACA came along and screwed it all up. Now only 35 million of those folks have the benefits of free market health insurance directed at them. The rest are stuck being insured by the ACA. Of course the free marketeer Repo governors of the 24 states that haven't cooperated with the ACA and allowed state exchanges are still representing those millions in their states by preventing them from getting screwed by the ACA and leaving them uninsured for the free market to help. We've practically never had free market healthcare. I've explained this to you ad-naseum before, but I'll give the quick version for the newcomers. What we had / have until they decide to enforce ObamaCare as it is the law now, is not health insurance. Insurance exists to indemnify people after a catastrophic loss. What we had was in effect a wage subsidy. It came into place as a result of the government intrusion into the economy during WWII- specifically, wage and price controls. After WWII, the government was slow (you wouldn't read about it, would you?) to lift wage and price controls, and in the economic boom- specifically manufacturing (as the world lay in rubble, the US had to make the stuff because nobody else could make stuff)- that followed the war, companies needed to find ways to attract workers, and wages were not at their disposal, so they offered "benefits". This was the beginning of the employee as quasi dependent. And so healthcare was on the menu at most companies- many, if not most, had company doctors on site. This gave way to "insurance" as we know it today-- where everything from soup to nuts is "covered". But that's not what insurance does. For example, your auto insurance doesn't pay for gas, oil changes, car washes, and maintenance. It pays for the catastrophic events. But none of that particularly matters to a public conditioned to have all healthcare services free, or greatly discounted if they've got a job. As people do, people got used to it, and a two tiered system developed that we largely still have today-- you either have a job, and your healthcare is largely provided for you, or you don't, and it's not. Things were further complicated for those without insurance because what we have / had was ultimately third-party-payer. The patient and the customer were two separate entities under the so-called 'free market' system (nevermind the additional fact that between the VA, Medicare, and Medicaid- government DIRECTLY provided or paid for 45% of all health services in the country) because with someone else paying the bill, the patient had no incentive to economize- and a large insurer isn't going to question $50, $100, or even $1,000 one way or the other. Providers learned the insurance game the way roofing contractors have decoded homeowners insurance. Costs went up, and people without third party payer-- no job, no insurance-- were priced out of both the individual insurance market, and the healthcare provider market. Even with homeowners insurance, the check goes to the insured. Unless the insured assigns the benefit- which often requires the written consent of the carrier- to a third party, the insured gets the money, the insured is 100% responsible for the disbursement of the funds to the contractors / service providers. Free Market Solution #1: Health Insurance has to become insurance. YOU pay for maintenance. Got the sniffles, need a physical, flu shot, whatever- that's on you. Insurance should kick in after some reasonable threshold per covered peril. Like say- cancer, the first $2,500 or $5,000 is out of pocket; the rest is covered up to the policy limits, and yes, sorry- but a policy needs to have limits. Government and/or charity could kick in after that. Free Market Solution #2: YOU pay for everything- you pay for the maintenance, which means you shop, they compete, you win. Same with the rest. Just like an adjuster can come out and estimate the cost of your roof- they can do the same for your chemo. The pay you a certain amount, and then YOU go shop for the best deal. Puts the incentive to economize back into play, and forces providers to compete- not only on price, but on service, and quality of treatment and options. These two approaches alone would fix the mess the government, yes- the government, has made of healthcare-- and the mess the government has made with ObamaCare trying to fix the mess they made.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Sept 4, 2014 22:43:02 GMT -5
And PBP is correct on this to a large degree. Health insurance should not be for regular visits, checkups, etc. but only for catastrophic events- as I remember buying back in the day was called hospitalization insurance. There were some fair points about it but it will never work.
Neither of these 'free market solutions' will work. Just a fact- unless you want to leave part of the population without care or options- which coincidently is what private insurers are good at- leaving the government to handle the unprofitable customers. We do not need health insurance companies- that is the point.
Believe it or not I like what Walmart is doing- and Walgreens has been- staffing health clinics in store with nurse practicioners- and in the Walmart case I think free for employees. Way to many common problems and solutions out there to require a damn doctor and an insurance company to be involved- not to mention having to buy a prescription just because.
My state was about to pass a law requiring a prescription for Sudafed and Nyquil- what the hell good is that? Because of some meth heads I have to have my driver's license scanned already just to buy them- and the answer is for me to pay for an office visit?!?! End the failed drug war bullshit already.
But a solution it is not- some form of single payer or universal system is the only option that will work.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Sept 5, 2014 11:23:20 GMT -5
Yes, the government made such a mess of the health insurance the 47 million didn't have. I hope the free market rescues those poor people from tyranny.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Sept 5, 2014 11:29:17 GMT -5
The free market gives the poor better products and services in every other area than government could possibly provide. Healthcare isn't magically different than everything else. The free market would deliver to the poor the best health products and services it is possible to provide- just like it does in every area of life it is allowed to function unmolested
I was really enjoying how the free market had stepped up to provide health insurance for the 47 million Americans that didn't have it until the ACA came along and screwed it all up. Now only 35 million of those folks have the benefits of free market health insurance directed at them. The rest are stuck being insured by the ACA. Of course the free marketeer Repo governors of the 24 states that haven't cooperated with the ACA and allowed state exchanges are still representing those millions in their states by preventing them from getting screwed by the ACA and leaving them uninsured for the free market to help. i believe that five of them have caved. 31 states + DC will have MC expansion by year end. if you missed this, so did most people. at least two of these cave-ins happened in the last WEEK. Wow, had not heard that yet. Seems like that should be big news....you know since the ACA is cleary failing and all.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Sept 5, 2014 11:36:44 GMT -5
Free Market Solution #1: Health Insurance has to become insurance. YOU pay for maintenance. Got the sniffles, need a physical, flu shot, whatever- that's on you. Insurance should kick in after some reasonable threshold per covered peril. Like say- cancer, the first $2,500 or $5,000 is out of pocket; the rest is covered up to the policy limits, and yes, sorry- but a policy needs to have limits. Government and/or charity could kick in after that. The problem with this & the whole car insurance comparison is that health insurance is NOT like car insurance. If I fail to do maintenance on my car & my engine locks up because I never changed the oil, insurance does not cover my engine. My lack of maintenance on my car will cost me. A lack of maintenance on my health will cost my insurance, so they have no incentive to want to cover it. But with health insurance, it doesn't matter if I end up in the ER because I was too cheap to visit a doctor for maintenance or because I was too cheap to pay for a flu shot. The cost of that decision comes down on insurance. Therefore it is actually in the insurers best interest to pay for maintenance because that is cheaper. They opt to do that for a reason. Same reason my insurance has this whole program to contact you several times during pregnancy & send all sort of information in the mail. No one makes them do that, but I'm sure they have found it results in healthier pregnancies & healthier babies & saves them money. Define maintenance. I am curious because chronic condtions can be very expensive to maintain.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 5, 2014 11:45:10 GMT -5
i believe that five of them have caved. 31 states + DC will have MC expansion by year end. if you missed this, so did most people. at least two of these cave-ins happened in the last WEEK. Wow, had not heard that yet. Seems like that should be big news....you know since the ACA is cleary failing and all. that is because the liberal media is so clearly on Obama's side...... (not) edit: for those of you that are curious, the five states that have recently decided to expand MediCaid under the ACA are listed in footnotes 1 and 3 of this document: kff.org/health-reform/state-indicator/state-activity-around-expanding-medicaid-under-the-affordable-care-act/i believe that all five have GOP legislatures- but i might be wrong about NH.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 5, 2014 12:12:42 GMT -5
Free Market Solution #1: Health Insurance has to become insurance. YOU pay for maintenance. Got the sniffles, need a physical, flu shot, whatever- that's on you. Insurance should kick in after some reasonable threshold per covered peril. Like say- cancer, the first $2,500 or $5,000 is out of pocket; the rest is covered up to the policy limits, and yes, sorry- but a policy needs to have limits. Government and/or charity could kick in after that. The problem with this & the whole car insurance comparison is that health insurance is NOT like car insurance. If I fail to do maintenance on my car & my engine locks up because I never changed the oil, insurance does not cover my engine. My lack of maintenance on my car will cost me. A lack of maintenance on my health will cost my insurance, so they have no incentive to want to cover it. But with health insurance, it doesn't matter if I end up in the ER because I was too cheap to visit a doctor for maintenance or because I was too cheap to pay for a flu shot. The cost of that decision comes down on insurance. Therefore it is actually in the insurers best interest to pay for maintenance because that is cheaper. They opt to do that for a reason. Same reason my insurance has this whole program to contact you several times during pregnancy & send all sort of information in the mail. No one makes them do that, but I'm sure they have found it results in healthier pregnancies & healthier babies & saves them money. Define maintenance. I am curious because chronic condtions can be very expensive to maintain. Well visits. Immunizations. Physicals. Chronic conditions would be out-of-pocket to the point of the deductible- which would be higher than most people are used to paying out of pocket. However spending more than you'd like sure beats being denied care because the government has to ration it.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Sept 5, 2014 13:40:04 GMT -5
The problem with this & the whole car insurance comparison is that health insurance is NOT like car insurance. If I fail to do maintenance on my car & my engine locks up because I never changed the oil, insurance does not cover my engine. My lack of maintenance on my car will cost me. A lack of maintenance on my health will cost my insurance, so they have no incentive to want to cover it. But with health insurance, it doesn't matter if I end up in the ER because I was too cheap to visit a doctor for maintenance or because I was too cheap to pay for a flu shot. The cost of that decision comes down on insurance. Therefore it is actually in the insurers best interest to pay for maintenance because that is cheaper. They opt to do that for a reason. Same reason my insurance has this whole program to contact you several times during pregnancy & send all sort of information in the mail. No one makes them do that, but I'm sure they have found it results in healthier pregnancies & healthier babies & saves them money. Define maintenance. I am curious because chronic condtions can be very expensive to maintain. Well visits. Immunizations. Physicals. Chronic conditions would be out-of-pocket to the point of the deductible- which would be higher than most people are used to paying out of pocket. However spending more than you'd like sure beats being denied care because the government has to ration it. Yeah, if govt was actually rationing care. They aren't so kind of irrelevent. I do like that you consider chronic condtions to not just be maintenance. However, that is what led insurance companies to deny insurance to people with pre-existing conditions. Those people cost more to insure, so in a free market you either charge them more or refuse to insure them. They can't get insurance, the poor (even middle class in some situations) can't afford to pay out-of-pocket & they are just screwed. IMO free market just doesn't work if you believe everyone should have a right to basic healthcare. If you don't believe that, then I suppose free market works awesome.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Sept 5, 2014 18:10:43 GMT -5
Most, if not all, states require drivers to have insurance. The more insured there are the bigger the pool. If Paul wants health insurance to be like car insurance the ACA is perfect. It wants everyone to be insured so the pool is as large as possible. In his own way, Paul is secretly for it.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 5, 2014 19:10:30 GMT -5
Most, if not all, states require drivers to have insurance. The more insured there are the bigger the pool. If Paul wants health insurance to be like car insurance the ACA is perfect. It wants everyone to be insured so the pool is as large as possible. In his own way, Paul is secretly for it. I am not for mandatory auto insurance, either. However, even in that instance I can choose not to drive, and the insurance company doesn't cover maintenance-- as I've said. Also, you don't get coverage for dates of loss prior to the beginning of coverage, and auto insurance still has limits. Because it's insurance.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,563
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 5, 2014 20:25:42 GMT -5
Not at all sure why auto insurance is being brought into this. The reason that states have mandatory auto insurance is for liability coverage for bodily injury and property damage. To cover and protect OTHER people. I'd be surprised if anyone is required to carry collision or comprehensive to cover their own car.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 6:26:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2014 20:41:42 GMT -5
Not at all sure why auto insurance is being brought into this. The reason that states have mandatory auto insurance is for liability coverage for bodily injury and property damage. To cover and protect OTHER people. I'd be surprised if anyone is required to carry collision or comprehensive to cover their own car. Only if they have a loan against the vehicle... Could we consider the fact that the gov has final responsibility for emergency and old age care to be a loan?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,563
|
Post by tallguy on Sept 5, 2014 20:57:18 GMT -5
Okay, that makes sense. I've never had a car payment in my life. How would I know?
(But still, that would be required by the lender, not the government.)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 6:26:09 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2014 21:05:26 GMT -5
The lender is ultimately responsible for the loss if there is a collision and no insurance. The government is ultimately responsible for loss if there is emergency/old age/poor communicable disease, ec... And no insurance...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 11, 2014 12:23:46 GMT -5
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 11, 2014 12:24:35 GMT -5
ObamaCare is a permanent part of the political landscape. it will forever be with us in some shape and form.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Dec 11, 2014 13:04:56 GMT -5
ObamaCare is a permanent part of the political landscape. it will forever be with us in some shape and form. Oh, I agree it's a permanent part of the political landscape, and it will forever be with us serving as a warning to overreaching, arrogant, greedy, power hungry politicians for decades to come. It will remain an object lesson in 'comprehensive' legislation. The damage done by Gruber to future efforts to deceive voters with problem-packed, tax-laden 'comprehensive' legislation is incalculable. It's full effects are not truly grasped by either party at the moment. ObamaCare - the PPACA in substance will likely not be repealed in whole. However, over time, in substance a de facto repeal will be just as final as a big symbolic successful repeal vote. The courts will continue to chip away at it, the Congress will chip away at it, and non-compliance and nullification will take care of the rest. Jonathan "the jerk" Gruber even acknowledges as much. Gruber makes my very argument on this thread:
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Dec 11, 2014 13:20:57 GMT -5
Yep- no need for such enormous legislation-they could have wrapped up health care reform in a 30 page bill once known as HR 676
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Health_Care_Act
I am all for it- repeal and replace- I especially like the requirement of getting rid of investor owned clinics, hospitals, etc.
The top 3 in the list
1.Expands the Medicare program to provide all individuals residing in the United States and U.S. territories with free (i.e. tax-funded) health care that includes all medically necessary care. This would include primary care and prevention, prescription drugs, emergency care, long-term care, mental health services, dental services, and vision care. 2.Prohibits an institution from participating unless it is a public or nonprofit institution. Allows nonprofit health maintenance organizations (HMOs) that deliver care in their own facilities to participate. On the whole, private insurances would be replaced with the new nationalized system for all basic, major care. 3.Gives patients the freedom to choose from participating physicians and institutions—which, given the coverage of the new national system, would be any institution or clinic in the United States receiving any degree of public funding (i.e. the vast majority).
I can feel the Republicans squirming from here.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Dec 11, 2014 13:28:14 GMT -5
Isn't "Obamacare" fully funded in the next budget? The longer it goes the less likely it is to be repealed.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,482
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Dec 11, 2014 14:58:51 GMT -5
Isn't "Obamacare" fully funded in the next budget? The longer it goes the less likely it is to be repealed. it is part of the continuing resolution. and it will go on for at least 2 years, unless congress goes for a total, 100% shutdown of the government. that would be everything, including DC and the military. so, yeah, it is here through 2017, at least.
|
|