is not good, to put it mildly.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/...are.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/...are.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.com/
Healthcare CBO Score...
- Thread starter RBB89
- Start date
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Fox News, after posting initially a poorly worded breaking news banner, has now pegged this story below a story about OJ getting out of jail.
What a crap news site.
I think I read somewhere recently where it actually hadn't been formally sent to the Senate yet, and the House might need to vote on it again.
while we're debating healthcare, i propose discussing another problem as well.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
how to keep water out your house when it's raining?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
we know a roof works great, but for this debate, we'll deem that answer as politically unviable.
one possible solution is giant fans that are powerful enough to blow the rain away from the house, at least reducing the amount of water that gets in the structure.
another would be giant heaters above the structure, that are powerful enough to evaporate some of the rain before it gets in the home.
or what about a hybrid, that uses both the fan and heater approaches? that's got to be more effective than just either/or by itself.
or we could have a giant jack system that turns the house on it's side when it rains, enabling one of the side walls to cover the home and keep much of the water out. (but wouldn't it technically be acting as a roof at that point)?
i know what you're all thinking, but suppose the giant fan, giant heater, and giant jacking system industries, all donated tens/hundreds of millions of dollars to campaigns of virtually everyone on both sides of the aisle, and had the political clout to elect or defeat, in primaries or general elections, enough legislators in both the house and the senate, to control any vote, while the roofing industry contributed virtually nothing compared the fan, heater, and jacking, industries, and had no such clout.
point being, even if we all know the best solution going in, what do we do if that solution isn't the most profitable for the big moneyed interests that control our bought and paid for brand of democracy?
answer; we endlessly debate the giant fan vs the giant heater vs the house jacking system, till we're all blue in the face.
as if said endless debate of what's the best of all the totally unviable solutions, could ever lead to the best system of keeping water out of the house.
until the "roof" option is put on the table as well, it's a beyond ridiculous debate with no possible viable solution, and the fan, heater, and jack, solutions, are all guaranteed to bankrupt the country due to their cost, while none will effectively solve the water in the house problem.
it's tragic when we know the answer to our most important issue, but the moneyed interest takeover of the govt won't allow it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
how to keep water out your house when it's raining?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
we know a roof works great, but for this debate, we'll deem that answer as politically unviable.
one possible solution is giant fans that are powerful enough to blow the rain away from the house, at least reducing the amount of water that gets in the structure.
another would be giant heaters above the structure, that are powerful enough to evaporate some of the rain before it gets in the home.
or what about a hybrid, that uses both the fan and heater approaches? that's got to be more effective than just either/or by itself.
or we could have a giant jack system that turns the house on it's side when it rains, enabling one of the side walls to cover the home and keep much of the water out. (but wouldn't it technically be acting as a roof at that point)?
i know what you're all thinking, but suppose the giant fan, giant heater, and giant jacking system industries, all donated tens/hundreds of millions of dollars to campaigns of virtually everyone on both sides of the aisle, and had the political clout to elect or defeat, in primaries or general elections, enough legislators in both the house and the senate, to control any vote, while the roofing industry contributed virtually nothing compared the fan, heater, and jacking, industries, and had no such clout.
point being, even if we all know the best solution going in, what do we do if that solution isn't the most profitable for the big moneyed interests that control our bought and paid for brand of democracy?
answer; we endlessly debate the giant fan vs the giant heater vs the house jacking system, till we're all blue in the face.
as if said endless debate of what's the best of all the totally unviable solutions, could ever lead to the best system of keeping water out of the house.
until the "roof" option is put on the table as well, it's a beyond ridiculous debate with no possible viable solution, and the fan, heater, and jack, solutions, are all guaranteed to bankrupt the country due to their cost, while none will effectively solve the water in the house problem.
it's tragic when we know the answer to our most important issue, but the moneyed interest takeover of the govt won't allow it.
That's weird. Are you sure it wasn't an article about the conference process if the Senate chooses to amend the House bill instead of passing a new one from whole cloth?
I vaguely remember reading that too. Just skimmed it but mainly recalling that the House might need to revote.
This is what I was remebering:
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/...-to-vote-again-on-gop-s-obamacare-repeal-bill
Ah, I get it. I mean, I don't really get it, but I understand the issue. Depending on the CBO report, the bill as passed might not be eligible for reconciliation, which means it's not filibuster-proof. So they chose to hold back on sending it over in case they need to redo it.
I'm surprised the House rules allow Ryan to do that.
And reading today, that turned out not to be an issue. CBO says it will save more than the required $2B. Which makes sense when you slash Medicaid and make coverage too expensive for millions even with a subsidy.
The bottom line on this bill is that House Republicans voted to finance huge tax cuts for the wealthy by taking health insurance away from the poor, the middle class, the sick, and the elderly. "Sucks to be you," say House Republicans. "Neener, neener, neener!"
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
And now it's the 30th link from top to bottom on the front page of FoxNews.com - below the OJ story and their daily quoting of MS-13.
Well really it's just reverting back to the status quo of 2010.
And not even really that, because now you have the GOP on record supporting a new Federal entitlement....albeit a lower one than the ACA provided.
The ACA is failing in many states, particularly more rural states. It needs some level of repair. The House bill isn't going to be the proper answer. But something in between might.
If you are a younger/healthier individual, that makes more than $40k/yr....the ACA has been very bad for you.
I can see how a conservative would look at it that way, but relative to the status quo, my description is bullet-proof. Every single problem that Republicans say Obamacare has? This would make all of them worse.
Yes, younger healthier people who aren't eligible for subsidies would mostly do better without Obamacare. But as I'm confident you appreciate, there will be relative winners and losers in every policy choice. Also, I'm very confident that there would be abundant Democratic support to make life easier for those younger, healthier not-quite-low-enough income folks. Do you think Congressional Republicans would get behind that? (Hint: No.)
Everyone has seen the meme that is the still of Dicaprio making a toast, just add "sucks to be you" caption and it is a perfect 2018 Republican campaign poster.
Couldn't get the generator to work on the phone, glad you did. I think that should be sent to Ryan and McConnell. They will love it.
It is nice to know Carson is helping that image with his "Poverty is a state of mind" crack.
I don't disagree. There are winners/losers with every major policy change.
I'd prefer to fund the shit out of high risk pools and leave the 90% of the population that isn't high cost to buy insurance that is more actuarial accurate.
High risk pools get a bad rap....It's not that they don't work.....It's that they have been massively underfunded.
But if you don't like that...I'd also be ok with a national single payer system, that covers everyone at a certain major, catastrophic level. This would eliminate the need for a lot of people to carry insurance whatsoever. (I personally would take the $22k/yr that wife and I's employers pay as salary, and take on more risk of a $10k bill.....I just want protection for the $100k+ illness).
Or they could buy private supplementary policies if they wanted. I'd advocate a payroll tax increase to fund this..actuarialy responsible for once.
Then you are just left with the chronic conditioned folks. And how they are paid for. I'm fine with socializing the subsidy these folks need....based on need (income/asset tested).
This may not be a "conservative" idea overall....but it's the best I can see actually working within our system.
In my mind, this always has been and always will be the key issue. We already have a f***ed up version of single payer for catastrophic care in the sens that, if you're not covered, you go bankrupt, and everyone else pays for it in higher prices and bigger premiums. There's just no good reason to not make it official and manage it efficiently, instead of having a patchwork nonsense so crazy it involves the court system.
It's annoying to argue with you, because you aren't annoying.
In addition to my prior response: Yes, in theory, high-risk pools could be funded at a sufficiently generous level that people would be begging to get into them. In practice, however, they are health insurance ghettoes, because that's what they're designed and intended to be.
I get into debates with my conservative friends like @crazed_hoosier2 often. Not because I disagree with him ideologically, but I disagree with him strenuously regarding the political strategy that can achieve the end goals.
Much of that likely comes from spending years working within the Fed Govt and understanding the apparatus. But that's for a different convo.
The modern day Republican party has slowly become exceedingly ideological, and very absent in pragmatism, in my personal opinion. It makes for grand speeches, but it's generally intellectually bankrupt of policy that fits the current world.
I want to preserve the individualistic dynamic that makes our society unique in the world. But I believe there is still a role for govt.
Proponents of Obamacare point to the number of insured and don't talk about the costs. Opponents talk about the cost but avoid the number insured. We have a system that has provided insurance to a lot of people but at a high cost and is extremely cumbersome. I prefer expanding Medicare at the state level and mandating that companies provide healthcare rather than incentifying companies to drop insurance and force employees onto the exchanges.
Over the last 15 years my company changed carriers 3 times and saved $ for the same or slightly improved coverage that included Rx, Optical, and Dental each time. Let the free market system work. Keep the Gov out of business. People who use Medicare as the model for great insurance need to understand that Medicare is not cheap and is frought with corruption and waste.
If one of your prime goals is to allow people to choose not to have health insurance, or little or no coverage, or just catastrophic coverage; the House approach looks good.
ACA needed people without health problems, who might apt out if given a choice, in order to help pay for those with pre-existing problems. When the young and healthy didn't sign up, ACA faced some big problems. The House plan is attempting to avoid this pitfall.
Heck if there was some easy solutions to making sense out of health care in America, given our system which has evolved over the years into this strange quilt, it would have happened long ago.
ACA needed people without health problems, who might apt out if given a choice, in order to help pay for those with pre-existing problems. When the young and healthy didn't sign up, ACA faced some big problems. The House plan is attempting to avoid this pitfall.
Heck if there was some easy solutions to making sense out of health care in America, given our system which has evolved over the years into this strange quilt, it would have happened long ago.
Rubio getting rid of the risk corridors didn't help premiums either. Republicans have done everything from day 1 to sabotage the ACA. Cut someone's brake lines and proceed to brag about how you told them their car wouldn't stop.
Of course they are. Because all the old and sick people contaminate the insurance pool. Need to segregate them out and let them fend for themselves.
Trumpcare vs Obamacare.
stupidest debate ever.
just to have the debate is to stall getting to the real solution.
it's not like most on both sides sides of the aisle don't already know the path we need to take.
those really calling the shots, just won't let them take it.
stupidest debate ever.
just to have the debate is to stall getting to the real solution.
it's not like most on both sides sides of the aisle don't already know the path we need to take.
those really calling the shots, just won't let them take it.
Bingo. That, and delaying the penalties for not getting coverage, really hurt the ACA.
But, Rubio really threw the biggest wrench into the ACA's machinery. Without that, there would be many more insurance carriers participating, and eventually the penalties would've kicked in and made the over-arching scheme work.
It was eerily reminiscent of McConnell's quote that his goal and the goal of his party was to make Obama a one-term president. The gloves were off at that point- before the ACA came to be.
I find it funny that the ACA was originally an idea of a 70's era right wing think tank. I think it shows just how far the Republican Party has shifted to the right. And, it largely worked in Massschussetts- under then governor Mitt Romney. And that history really hurt him later.
Why the hell can't we acknowledge that what we've done hasn't worked all that well (from both directions), and learn from the experience?
Similar threads
