Donald trump. what is your take on him?

[Gold]

I would bet a small amount of money that the Republican leadership will craft a bill that fixes some of the worst parts of the ACA. Then waive their magic wands, pronounce it fixed, take credit and move on.

 

[Matador]

...Stuff...

Just a pointer, you don't need to quote the entire article - maybe summarize why it's relevant?

Modulo using shadowproof ( ) as "proof": Republicans have been dead set against any kind of Medicaide expansion.  Ryan and company have been desperate to convert Medicaide into a voucher program for years, so that the burden of costs shifts back to individual payers - you know, the exact opposite of a public option.

So arguing that Obama "sold out" because he didn't push for a public option ignores what most Republicans have been pushing for the past 10+ years.

 

[tands]

I would bet a small amount of money that the Republican leadership will craft a bill that fixes some of the worst parts of the ACA. Then waive their magic wands, pronounce it fixed, take credit and move on.

That's what they'd prefer. It doesn't seem that that's good enough for Trump, though. He wants it repealed. Why do you think we're being told about piss and such?

 

[tands]

Just a pointer, you don't need to quote the entire article - maybe summarize why it's relevant?

Modulo using shadowproof ( ) as "proof": Republicans have been dead set against any kind of Medicaide expansion.  Ryan and company have been desperate to convert Medicaide into a voucher program for years, so that the burden of costs shifts back to individual payers - you know, the exact opposite of a public option.

So arguing that Obama "sold out" because he didn't push for a public option ignores what most Republicans have been pushing for the past 10+ years.

It was a long saga, I thought it was a good summary of the actions taken. Obama sold out by doing a LOT of things, including not pushing for a public option.  Did you miss the part where no republicans voted for Obamacare and it passed anyway? That means their votes weren't needed, so what they push didn't matter.

Right?

 

[Gold]

Is this even debatable?

I thought that was what we were doing.

 

[tands]

I thought that was what we were doing.

Nope.

 

[Gold]

That's what they'd prefer. It doesn't seem that that's good enough for Trump, though. He wants it repealed. Why do you think we're being told about piss and such?

He just wants to Make America Great Again. Repealed, replaced, call it whatever you want. As long as we've won we're good.

 

[tands]

"The U.S. Senate on Thursday took a first concrete step toward dismantling Obamacare, voting to instruct key committees to draft legislation repealing President Barack Obama’s signature health insurance program.

The final vote, which ended just past 1:30 a.m., was 51-48. The resolution now goes to the House of Representatives, which is expected to vote on it this week. Scrapping Obamacare is a top priority for the Republican majorities in both chambers and Republican President-elect Donald Trump.

Republicans have said that the process of repealing Obamacare could take months, and developing a replacement plan could take longer. But they are under pressure from Trump to act fast; he said on Wednesday that the repeal and replacement should happen “essentially simultaneously.”

-

The resolution approved Thursday instructs committees of the House and Senate to draft repeal legislation by a target date of January 27. Both chambers will then need to approve the resulting legislation before any repeal goes into effect.

Senate Republicans are using special budget procedures that allow them to repeal Obamacare by a simple majority; this way they don’t need Democratic votes. Republicans have a majority of 52 votes in the 100-seat Senate; one Republican, Senator Rand Paul, voted no on Thursday."

http://www.rawstory.com/2017/01/republicans-except-for-rand-paul-vote-to-gut-obamacare-in-the-dead-of-night/

 

[nielsk]

There is nothing new about the Republican approach to healthcare, Reagan put it best when he said " what Healthcare problem? Just don't get sick"

They want it to go back to the way it was before, where people like me can't afford insurance (I had to drop it when it went over $1,200 a month about 20 years ago...), the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy is medical bills, and the 1% are making billions off big Pharma, hospitals, and insurance companies while getting tax free additions to their income in the form of employee provided insurance.

The real problem with the ACA is they did not eliminate the employer provided insurance, an incredibly stupid system, typical of the "s**t that stuck against the wall" approach to dealing with things in the USA

 

[DaveP]

I feel really sorry for US citizens over their healthcare, I don't know how you cope.

I have experienced both the UK and French systems and they work!  Maybe not perfectly, but they work for the maximum number of people, not just the richest.

The US system gives evolution a boost, survival of the fittest, survival of the richest.

My cousin and her husband bought a place in Florida for their retirement, but when they looked into the health insurance costs, they discovered that they would never be able to afford the payments due to her earlier health history.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

For any new to this scrum, and I can tell from the repetition of old topics several are, we discussed this all ad nauseum while the ACA was in it's formative stages. I feel like a few of my predictions about flaws have come home to roost but like so what? It appears the voting public has requested a re-write so that is where we are now.

We all probably need to wait and see what is different this time. If it isn't significantly different why bother? I hold both political parties in low regard but republicans seem a little better at business and budgets. I am not smart enough to predict even the near future about this in more than gross generalities. Many of you appear to think you can. Arguing about the future is even less productive than investing so much effort into making firm predictions now. That is our elected representative's actual job to sort this all out and I seriously doubt they are lurking here for inspiration (maybe they should). 

I personally find it calming to make more posts about audio and circuitry to this forum than about team politics, perhaps a resolution some of the more prolific posters here could consider (for their own peace of mind)? It is increasingly hard to avoid political dissent in almost every corner of the WWW these days, so we won't go hungry for hand to hand political conflict if there is a little less of it here.

Of course you can always just keep doing whatever the (......) you want... This is the brewery after all.  8)

JR

 

[mattiasNYC]

I hold both political parties in low regard but republicans seem a little better at business and budgets.

How can you say that when budget deficits increase when republicans are in control?

And in what sense is Trump better at business? He's sold his family name and had multiple bankruptcies.

Here's some interesting math for people to enjoy on this topic:

http://goliards.us/adelphi/deficits/index.html

 

[Andy Peters]

The real problem with the ACA is they did not eliminate the employer provided insurance, an incredibly stupid system, typical of the "s**t that stuck against the wall" approach to dealing with things in the USA

The reason we have this bonkers system goes back to after WW2. Big manufacturing companies wanted to limit the ability of workers to move between employers. Rather than give the workers' unions the responsibility for managing benefits (health insurance and retirement/pension mainly), the companies chose to offer those benefits themselves. Of course we all know what happened to the defined-benefits pension plans, and now employers large and small find themselves being in the business of offering health insurance coverage as a benefit because the employees they want to retain won't work for them otherwise.

I honestly don't understand why any "business leader" worthy of the title doesn't come right out and say, "we've had enough of being in the health insurance business."

Now the ACA, which as everyone should know was originally a Heritage Foundation proposal and was actually implemented in Massachusetts by that flaming liberal* Mitt Romney, where the plan proved popular. Whether Obama was always in favor of a single-payer plan or not is actually irrelevant -- what is important is that he (and anyone on the left here in the US with a brain) realized that there was simply no way that the Republicans would go for single payer. Thus the choice to expand the Massachusetts plan to a national plan, keeping in place the whole industry of for-profit health insurance while requiring that they cover things at reasonable cost that they would ordinarily not even cover at all or charge insane premiums (the whole "pre-existing conditions" issue). And the only way to appease the insurers is to mandate that everyone participate, as that would expand the insured pool so that premium income wouldn't be swamped by claim payouts.

So what happened is what could reasonably be expected: people who were previously uninsurable and others who needed care but didn't have insurance before all went out and bought insurance and ACTUALLY USED IT.  That meant that the insurers' profits went down. It wasn't that they were losing money, but that they weren't making as much as they expected.

A further problem with the ACA plans is that it insures individuals. As we know, the larger the group, the better the insurance. By  "better" I mean lower premiums with better coverage (lower deductibles, no maximums, etc). This is why my wife's plan (she works at the local land grant research university, which means her employer is the state) is significantly better than the plan offered by my employer (50-person firm). The ACA allowed individuals to buy insurance at rates much less than previously offered, but still, at higher rates than an employee of a large company.

So, obviously the solution to this mess is a single payer plan that eliminates for-profit insurance companies.

 

[fazer]

Single payer also IMO requires tort reform.  Changes also to drug plans and hospitals for profit which would IMO led to 2 tiers of coverage assuming you could get congress to go for this in the first place.  Good luck on that's.

author=DaveP link

The US system gives evolution a boost, survival of the fittest, survival of the richest.

My favorite quote of the day.

 

[JohnRoberts]

The reason we have this bonkers system goes back to after WW2. Big manufacturing companies wanted to limit the ability of workers to move between employers. Rather than give the workers' unions the responsibility for managing benefits (health insurance and retirement/pension mainly), the companies chose to offer those benefits themselves. Of course we all know what happened to the defined-benefits pension plans, and now employers large and small find themselves being in the business of offering health insurance coverage as a benefit because the employees they want to retain won't work for them otherwise.

Yup. Pretty much government working with big business to lock up workers. A benefit to big businesses that small companies couldn't effectively take advantage of.

I honestly don't understand why any "business leader" worthy of the title doesn't come right out and say, "we've had enough of being in the health insurance business."

Maybe some will, but once the public gets a taste for the government teat it will be hard to wean them off.

It still stands to be seen whether big business will have more influence or less with the new administration. I'm hoping for less.

Now the ACA, which as everyone should know was originally a Heritage Foundation proposal and was actually implemented in Massachusetts by that flaming liberal* Mitt Romney, where the plan proved popular.

Nobody remembers "Hillarycare" promoted (and rejected) back during her husbands administration? The democrats have been pushing for socialized medicine since the depression (the real one), if not even before.

Whether Obama was always in favor of a single-payer plan or not is actually irrelevant -- what is important is that he (and anyone on the left here in the US with a brain) realized that there was simply no way that the Republicans would go for single payer.

they had a super majority so it didn't matter what the republicans would go for.. the present ACA is flirting with marginal constitutionality. (I don't agree with my namesakes generous SCOTUS opinion on this mandate being a tax.)

Thus the choice to expand the Massachusetts plan to a national plan, keeping in place the whole industry of for-profit health insurance while requiring that they cover things at reasonable cost that they would ordinarily not even cover at all or charge insane premiums (the whole "pre-existing conditions" issue). And the only way to appease the insurers is to mandate that everyone participate, as that would expand the insured pool so that premium income wouldn't be swamped by claim payouts.

So what happened is what could reasonably be expected: people who were previously uninsurable and others who needed care but didn't have insurance before all went out and bought insurance and ACTUALLY USED IT.  That meant that the insurers' profits went down. It wasn't that they were losing money, but that they weren't making as much as they expected.

Several insurers were paying out more in claims than they took in from customer payments from their ACA accounts, before they exited the ACA business.  They could still be profitable in other insurance lines but that just reinforces the failed business model of the ACA.  For the first few years the ACA actually subsidized insurance companies to cover their losses. As the subsidies tapered off so did the profit for several insurers.

A further problem with the ACA plans is that it insures individuals. As we know, the larger the group, the better the insurance. By  "better" I mean lower premiums with better coverage (lower deductibles, no maximums, etc). This is why my wife's plan (she works at the local land grant research university, which means her employer is the state) is significantly better than the plan offered by my employer (50-person firm). The ACA allowed individuals to buy insurance at rates much less than previously offered, but still, at higher rates than an employee of a large company.

So, obviously the solution to this mess is a single payer plan that eliminates for-profit insurance companies.

Obviously.... ;D ;D ;D  Just like the government run veteran's healthcare?

I am curious to hear some new ideas.

JR

 

[Matador]

Brilliantly summarized Andy.

Several insurers were paying out more in claims than they took in from customer payments from their ACA accounts, before they exited the ACA business.  They could still be profitable in other insurance lines but that just reinforces the failed business model of the ACA.  For the first few years the ACA actually subsidized insurance companies to cover their losses. As the subsidies tapered off so did the profit for several insurers.

It's funny how well FUD regarding Obamacare was leveraged in the election:  yes, premiums did increase, but they were steadily increasing well before Obamacare was enacted, and the rate-of-increase slowed after ACA became law.

John, would you care to take a guess at the total profits of the top 5 private insurance companies between 2010 and 2016?

Let's review the bidding (just in general, I'm not trying to quote you John):

1) The ACA is a disaster that must be killed, because it's "collapsing"?
2) The federal government cannot run anything without it becoming awash in corruption and bureaucracy:  so single payer is out?
3) Government supplied health care like the VA is a disaster:  we can't possibly do that?
4) The private insurance companies will always place their for-profit motive above all else (the main problem with the ACA that I see), so that is out?

So are we left at a point where we should just buy everyone man, woman, and child in the US a Glock 17, and let everyone fight it out in the streets for health care? 

 

[JohnRoberts]

Brilliantly summarized Andy.
It's funny how well FUD regarding Obamacare was leveraged in the election:  yes, premiums did increase, but they were steadily increasing well before Obamacare was enacted, and the rate-of-increase slowed after ACA became law.

John, would you care to take a guess at the total profits of the top 5 private insurance companies between 2010 and 2016?

Let's review the bidding (just in general, I'm not trying to quote you John):

1) The ACA is a disaster that must be killed, because it's "collapsing"?
2) The federal government cannot run anything without it becoming awash in corruption and bureaucracy:  so single payer is out?
3) Government supplied health care like the VA is a disaster:  we can't possibly do that?
4) The private insurance companies will always place their for-profit motive above all else (the main problem with the ACA that I see), so that is out?

So are we left at a point where we should just buy everyone man, woman, and child in the US a Glock 17, and let everyone fight it out in the streets for health care? 

straw man much? 

For the record I said, lets wait and hear what is being proposed. All this hyperbole and hysteria is not productive. 

JR

PS: Maybe handing out Glocks in Chicago could reduce killings.

 

[mattiasNYC]

It's funny how well FUD regarding Obamacare was leveraged in the election:  yes, premiums did increase, but they were steadily increasing well before Obamacare was enacted, and the rate-of-increase slowed after ACA became law.

Pesky details are to be ignored.

 

[mattamatta]

So are we left at a point where we should just buy everyone man, woman, and child in the US a Glock 17, and let everyone fight it out in the streets for health care? 

That's a terrible idea.

What about those of us who are more comfortable with a 1911?  We'll be slaughtered!

 

[tands]

Single payer also IMO requires tort reform.

Reduce the Medicare eligibilty age to 0, Medicare for all. No torts. Sooner or later, this will happen, waiting only continues insurance company rent seeking profits at the cost of huge and mortal suffering. They're ghouls.

The democrats have been pushing for socialized medicine since the depression (the real one), if not even before. they had a super majority so it didn't matter what the republicans would go for.. the present ACA is flirting with marginal constitutionality. (I don't agree with my namesakes generous SCOTUS opinion on this mandate being a tax.)

Yes, exactly!

It's funny how well FUD regarding Obamacare was leveraged in the election:  yes, premiums did increase, but they were steadily increasing well before Obamacare was enacted, and the rate-of-increase slowed after ACA became law.

Trump beat Hills for many reasons, but two big ones were Obamacare and TPP, both are corporate subversions of the government. The state requiring the populace to purchase a widget from a for profit entity or be penalized is unconstitutional, as well as being fascist, in addition. Selling out the sovereignity of the US to corporations via the TPP is treason, precisely, but against whom?