60 Minutes- Boehner and McConnell can't explain an ACA alternative plan

[SlevinKelevra]

Having the government forcing you to do something, doesn't have anything to do with individual responsibility, just goes to show how little you understand that concept but that's okay.

But I'm glad you responded, because I can now clear up the misconception you guys have! I can see how you all could be confused by that. The issue is that since the 90's, the individual mandate was put into place and the average conservative didn't like it. The other thing to keep in mind is that both parties, but for our purposes the Republican Party, has gone to the more extreme side of the spectrum since then. You see, when the Democrats won all those elections back in 06 and 08, all they did was pick off the moderate and vulnerable ones (same thing incidentally happened to Democrats in 10 and 14). Without the moderate voices, you have the ideological left (which I agree with on this instance but that's beside the point).

Can you give examples of who constitutes this from an elected politician perspective?
Because, in the 90s, almost every major power broker amongst the elected GOP supported the IM.
Is Friedman no longer a conservative hero? LMAO!!!
The Tortuous History of Conservatives and the Individual Mandate - Forbes

 

[Hamster Buddha]

Can you give examples of who constitutes this from an elected politician perspective?
Because, in the 90s, almost every major power broker amongst the elected GOP supported the IM.
Is Friedman no longer a conservative hero? LMAO!!!
The Tortuous History of Conservatives and the Individual Mandate - Forbes

The issue here is that you're missing out on a big piece of the picture. See what Friedman proposed (and I'd be curious if you'd agree) is that he would support an individual mandate IF we abandoned Medicare and Medicaid. That would be a trade off I could consider under the right circumstance. The bigger issue though is that the way the individual mandate was sold with Obamacare, is through a Government regulated (and mandated) health care exchange. See back in the 90's, the plan was to have insurance companies compete and let the marketplace decide. That's not what happened though was it?

 

[SlevinKelevra]

The issue here is that you're missing out on a big piece of the picture. See what Friedman proposed (and I'd be curious if you'd agree) is that he would support an individual mandate IF we abandoned Medicare and Medicaid. That would be a trade off I could consider under the right circumstance. The bigger issue though is that the way the individual mandate was sold with Obamacare, is through a Government regulated (and mandated) health care exchange. See back in the 90's, the plan was to have insurance companies compete and let the marketplace decide. That's not what happened though was it?

How can you have the IM in an industry that excludes segments of the population by default (elderly, pre-existing conditions, etc)
?

 

[Hamster Buddha]

How can you have the IM in an industry that excludes segments of the population by default (elderly, pre-existing conditions, etc)
?

You didn't answer my question, so why should I answer yours?

Ah, because I'm nice that's why! So you get one freebie. To answer your question, obviously if you are going to put in an individual mandate, then you're going to work with Insurance companies to make sure they take said people.

Now your turn: would you support getting rid of Medicare and Medicaid if there were viable private sector alternatives?

 

[SlevinKelevra]

You didn't answer my question, so why should I answer yours?

Ah, because I'm nice that's why! So you get one freebie. To answer your question, obviously if you are going to put in an individual mandate, then you're going to work with Insurance companies to make sure they take said people.

That sounds a lot like...

"is through a Government regulated (and mandated) health care exchange"

 

[Hamster Buddha]

That sounds a lot like...

"is through a Government regulated (and mandated) health care exchange"

May sound like it, but that's the problem with Obamacare. Just listen to the selling points the White House puts out and it sounds great. But see, there's a bit of fine print that your ignoring. Devils in the details and what not. And speaking of ignoring, is there a reason you aren't answering the question I postulated? I did answer yours, only seems fair doesn't it?

 

[Greenbeard]

That sounds a lot like...

"is through a Government regulated (and mandated) health care exchange"

That's because it's the same thing. Rules of the road for insurers to create a functional marketplace with reasonable consumer protections. All roads lead to pretty much the same place.

 

[Hamster Buddha]

That's because it's the same thing. Rules of the road for insurers to create a functional marketplace with reasonable consumer protections. All roads lead to pretty much the same place.

No there not the same, nice try though.

 

[Dittohead not!]

You know what I don't get about people like you? It's the idea that you believe that your best defense is to somehow convince us that when the Obamacare was being discussed, that Republicans were somehow for it because in the past they were for it. I mean, if we believed that politicians don't or can't adjust their views, then I suppose Hillary and Obama are still anti-SSM then?

The biggest problem with Obamacare, from the point of view ofthe Republican Party of today, is that it was passed by Democrats. Since the Democrats passed it, the best thing to do is harp on "death panels." Since the public no longer buys that load of (bleep!), let's pick out the least popular part of the bill and harp on that instead. Never mind the other points that are quite popular, just keep repeating "socialism, individual mandate, must overturn the ACA" over and over again.

The problem is, the Republicans have nothing with which to replace the ACA, and, if they did, the Democrats would have to oppose it.

Even if it were a mirror image of the ACA, but with an R after its name.

 

[JasperL]

No there not the same, nice try though.

But you said, "you're going to work with Insurance companies to make sure they take said people." Not really, you're either going to require them to take said people or they won't, or won't at a price mortal humans can afford. And if you require them to take, e.g., cancer survivors, you have to have 1) a mandate, and 2) minimum coverage.

And so we arrive at the basics of ACA.

 

[JasperL]

The biggest problem with Obamacare, from the point of view ofthe Republican Party of today, is that it was passed by Democrats. Since the Democrats passed it, the best thing to do is harp on "death panels." Since the public no longer buys that load of (bleep!), let's pick out the least popular part of the bill and harp on that instead. Never mind the other points that are quite popular, just keep repeating "socialism, individual mandate, must overturn the ACA" over and over again.

The problem is, the Republicans have nothing with which to replace the ACA, and, if they did, the Democrats would have to oppose it.

Even if it were a mirror image of the ACA, but with an R after its name.

I don't actually think that's true. If Bush had proposed the ACA, it's impossible for me to believe that 100% of democrats would have voted no although I'm sure many would have held out for single payer or something.

Your first point is actually the problem IMO. They've never seriously proposed any fix to the individual healthcare market, and even five years after ACA passed, still can't settle on an actual proposal with details beyond the napkin stage that even gets majority GOP support, much less has a reasonable chance of getting through Congress. What's worse, and Obama identified this problem during the ACA debates, is the GOP is taking hard line positions on the ACA that will have to be part of ANY reform plan, such as the individual mandate, which is simply a rule against freeloading.

We'll see I guess. Hope I'm wrong and we see serious republicans work hard on a decent alternative or reasonable improvements to ACA.

 

[Conservative]

I don't actually think that's true. If Bush had proposed the ACA, it's impossible for me to believe that 100% of democrats would have voted no although I'm sure many would have held out for single payer or something.

Your first point is actually the problem IMO. They've never seriously proposed any fix to the individual healthcare market, and even five years after ACA passed, still can't settle on an actual proposal with details beyond the napkin stage that even gets majority GOP support, much less has a reasonable chance of getting through Congress. What's worse, and Obama identified this problem during the ACA debates, is the GOP is taking hard line positions on the ACA that will have to be part of ANY reform plan, such as the individual mandate, which is simply a rule against freeloading.

We'll see I guess. Hope I'm wrong and we see serious republicans work hard on a decent alternative or reasonable improvements to ACA.

What you are seeing is reality, whatever side proposes the issue the other one is going to be against it. Democrats want a single payer system covering everyone and Republicans want a market driven system that promotes competition.

I don't get it, why is a personal responsibility issue ever the role of the Federal Govt? I have posted many times the results of things like SS and Medicare, all good intentions but all ripe with waste, fraud, and abuse. Both were put on budget because more was coming in than going out thus a huge pot of money was available for Congress to spend and guess what, they did, leaving both in the hole.

Now more good intentioned liberals want to do the same thing with heathcare and good people support the idea but haven't thought this through. I don't want it replaced I want it scraped and the real issue of costs addressed and they you can give people a tax credit to buy more affordable insurance.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I don't actually think that's true. If Bush had proposed the ACA, it's impossible for me to believe that 100% of democrats would have voted no although I'm sure many would have held out for single payer or something.

Your first point is actually the problem IMO. They've never seriously proposed any fix to the individual healthcare market, and even five years after ACA passed, still can't settle on an actual proposal with details beyond the napkin stage that even gets majority GOP support, much less has a reasonable chance of getting through Congress. What's worse, and Obama identified this problem during the ACA debates, is the GOP is taking hard line positions on the ACA that will have to be part of ANY reform plan, such as the individual mandate, which is simply a rule against freeloading.

We'll see I guess. Hope I'm wrong and we see serious republicans work hard on a decent alternative or reasonable improvements to ACA.

I hope you're wrong, too.

But, I don't think you are.

 

[jaeger19]

For the one millionth time, the left is just wildly assuming that most uninsured fit the Charlie hypothesis. That is a very desperate form of debate.

Its not an assumption.. most of the uninsured, when they have something serious, do fit Charlie. That's not an assumption on my part.. that fact hits my bottom line every day. As it does for most providers especially hospitals and other entities that have to follow emtala.

 

[Conservative]

Its not an assumption.. most of the uninsured, when they have something serious, do fit Charlie. That's not an assumption on my part.. that fact hits my bottom line every day. As it does for most providers especially hospitals and other entities that have to follow emtala.

Again, you seem to believe it is the taxpayers responsibility to fund Charlie and all the others out there who don't have insurance through either choice or affordability? So really you don't care who pays just so you get paid? Thanks, that explains a lot. This is Charley's responsibility, then comes the family, then the community, then the charities, then the state, and as a last resort the Federal Taxpayers.

 

[jaeger19]

History is my friend not govt. projections and history tells me that there isn't a govt. projection or prediction that has ever been accurate and yet that is ignored by you and you want another entitlement program created. That is total insanity. Now what happens when the baby boomers actually retire and start collecting. The Obama economy has postponed a lot of retirements.

You are really passionate about this issue so tell me, what happens if you are wrong? I think you are wrong and history tells me you are wrong but that doesn't change your opinion and nothing else will until it is too late.

I hold FDR to a different standard than Ford because FDR ran the Public entity and Ford ran the private entity. Your belief that the Federal govt. is the answer is scary at best and quite ignorant.

I really am not sure where you get your information but now it sounds like it was the Clinton Administration signing Republican Congress legislation that you are now blaming for the payments you are receiving. When will you ever take responsibility for supporting the failures of the Federal Govt? This is getting old, let's just dissolve the states, become a Federal Employee, and then all your problems will be solved. I am certainly glad I live in TX and don't have to deal with your bs.

Not sure how old you are but you don't have a clue, I posted the data showing how many IOU's are sitting in storage and you don't seem to understand that the budget is made up of two items, Public Debt and Intergovt. holdings. Most of Intergovt. holdings are in IOU's so let me know when your grocery store takes IOU's in payment for what you buy?

First.. I DON"T WANT ANOTHER ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM CREATED..... seriously.... you lose any credibility when you ascribe positions to people that THEY DO NOT HAVE. CRIPES MAN.. I HAVE REPEATEDLY POINTED OUT TO ANY AND ALL WHY WE DON"T WANT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE AND HERE YOU ARE CLAIMING I SUPPORT WHAT I VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE...

Secondly. So what that the government can't look a hundred years into the future? Companies generally don't predict the future with 100% accuracy either. But the fact is... Medicare which is the subject at hand... HAS run very well since its inception and currently has a surplus that it is able to draw from until roughly 2030. Maybe it will be less.. maybe more... but again a lot depends on what happens till then.

You hold FDR to a different standard because you don't like FDR. I look at things rationally and not ideologically as you do.. There are roles for the government to play in things that the free market cannot or should not do.. like the military.. like roads, like infrastructure and yes.. when it comes to certain safety nets for the elderly and society.

And I have more than a clue sir... Yep.. it was Clinton signing republican legislation that lowered payments for medicare. You didn't even know anything about it did you? but I do.. because I own a healthcare business.

And yep you posted about IOU's and that's what is the huge disconnect in your thinking. You blame medicare and social security.. when the reality is that the IOU IS TO MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY... Because it was their surpluses that were borrowed AGAINST. :doh

Your diatribe about "becoming federal employees".. is simply yet another diversion from the reality at hand. You sir are not and have not been correct in most any of your statements or positions.. and you ascribe position to me that I do not have nor have ever, ever held. That is out of pure desperation from your part because at some level.. you must realize that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[jaeger19]

I stand by my post, and respect your opinion no matter how wrong and distorted it is. You have no understanding at all about the budget of the United States and the IOU's being held for SS and Medicare. Some say ignorance is bliss, good luck with that. It was my choice to stay employed and not go on my own, my family benefited, my kids prospered, and financially thanks to stock options I did incredibly well.

Social Security IOUs stashed away - Washington Times

You have shown no understanding of economics at all and continue to buy the big govt. rhetoric.

Unfortunately its you that have no understanding about the budget of the united states... you don't even realize what it means that SS and Medicare hold have IOU's... its because they brought in a SURPLUS OF MONEY FOR YEARS AND YEARS.

But that fact escapes you. You rail about them being fiscally insolvent.. and can't seem to understand that the reason that they have "iou's" is because they brought in a surplus of money for decades. Enough surplus that they can run in the red for another couple of decades. Find me a private company that you know that can red in the red for decades because of its fiscal solvency...

Sorry sir... but I have a great understanding of economics... and have proven it.

 

[jaeger19]

None of that has a thing to do with the indisputable fact that France spends about 7% on its health care, while we pay more like 18%. Meanwhile, the French live longer and have a lower infant mortality.

Those are the facts, unspun and unvarnished.

Actually it has everthing to do with it. France spends about 7% on its healthcare because in part.. they shift costs from healthcare to other government spending such as education of physicians, to social safety nets that allow people to retire earlier, allow them to take care of sick parents and children in the home etc.

That's a fact.. and its unspun, unvarnished and better.. logical.

 

[upsideguy]

You know what I don't get about people like you? It's the idea that you believe that your best defense is to somehow convince us that when the Obamacare was being discussed, that Republicans were somehow for it because in the past they were for it. I mean, if we believed that politicians don't or can't adjust their views, then I suppose Hillary and Obama are still anti-SSM then?

I was taking issue with a very specific claim(s):

Name one GOP Senator or Representative that suggested much less proposed mandates. And don't give me the "Heritage Foundation" myth.

It was a claim that specifically denied that GOP never advocated for the mandate and that Heritage Foundation had nothing to do with the design of what we now have as healthcare.

That said, as to your point about liberals continually reminding Cons their finger prints are all over the PPACA, well, too many Cons believe that Obamacare is some type of liberal idea. It's not. It was an idea with conservative roots that liberals merely effected the law. The Cons are free to dislike it now, but not free to deny their involvement in its architecture.

Thank you, however, for acknowledging what many Cons deny, that in the "...past they [the Republicans] were for it..."

 

[Conservative]

First.. I DON"T WANT ANOTHER ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM CREATED..... seriously.... you lose any credibility when you ascribe positions to people that THEY DO NOT HAVE. CRIPES MAN.. I HAVE REPEATEDLY POINTED OUT TO ANY AND ALL WHY WE DON"T WANT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE AND HERE YOU ARE CLAIMING I SUPPORT WHAT I VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE...

Secondly. So what that the government can't look a hundred years into the future? Companies generally don't predict the future with 100% accuracy either. But the fact is... Medicare which is the subject at hand... HAS run very well since its inception and currently has a surplus that it is able to draw from until roughly 2030. Maybe it will be less.. maybe more... but again a lot depends on what happens till then.

You hold FDR to a different standard because you don't like FDR. I look at things rationally and not ideologically as you do.. There are roles for the government to play in things that the free market cannot or should not do.. like the military.. like roads, like infrastructure and yes.. when it comes to certain safety nets for the elderly and society.

And I have more than a clue sir... Yep.. it was Clinton signing republican legislation that lowered payments for medicare. You didn't even know anything about it did you? but I do.. because I own a healthcare business.

And yep you posted about IOU's and that's what is the huge disconnect in your thinking. You blame medicare and social security.. when the reality is that the IOU IS TO MEDICARE AND SOCIAL SECURITY... Because it was their surpluses that were borrowed AGAINST. :doh

Your diatribe about "becoming federal employees".. is simply yet another diversion from the reality at hand. You sir are not and have not been correct in most any of your statements or positions.. and you ascribe position to me that I do not have nor have ever, ever held. That is out of pure desperation from your part because at some level.. you must realize that you don't know what you are talking about.

The fact is what you want is irrelevant for what is happening is the govt. is getting their foot into the door and eventually they will have the entire house. It was the desire of liberals to have a single payer system and yet they knew they couldn't sell that so they are incrementally working towards exactly that.

As for an IOU, somehow you believe that the money to cover those IOU's are going to magically appear from that money tree in the backyard. Where do you think that money is going to come from and to fund the govt. at the same time?

I am still waiting for you to show me where the Govt. has ever solved a social problem vs. just creating more dependence? If you solve a problem it goes away. We have over 100 million Americans dependent on some form of taxpayer assistance right now because of that govt. social engineering. I am sure you mean well but you are entirely naïve, gullible and misinformed.

 

[Conservative]

Unfortunately its you that have no understanding about the budget of the united states... you don't even realize what it means that SS and Medicare hold have IOU's... its because they brought in a SURPLUS OF MONEY FOR YEARS AND YEARS.

But that fact escapes you. You rail about them being fiscally insolvent.. and can't seem to understand that the reason that they have "iou's" is because they brought in a surplus of money for decades. Enough surplus that they can run in the red for another couple of decades. Find me a private company that you know that can red in the red for decades because of its fiscal solvency...

Sorry sir... but I have a great understanding of economics... and have proven it.

No, my friend, the facts escape you. How are those trillions in IOU's going to funded? Yes it was borrow, and yes it was replaced with IOU's. Think the govt. is going to send those IOU's as payment to the recipients when they retire?

Please tell me you really aren't this poorly informed on the budget, IOU's, and basic accounting?? You certainly have proven no such thing about economics. My hope is you grow out of this ignorance.

 

[JasperL]

It was a claim that specifically denied that GOP never advocated for the mandate and that Heritage Foundation had nothing to do with the design of what we now have as healthcare.

What's a bit shocking is that the mandate is such an issue for the "personal responsibility" crowd. If you don't have insurance, and aren't independently wealthy, the rest of us are effectively paying your catastrophic health care policy premiums. The mandate and related tax/fine just puts a price on freeloading. It's one of the more conservative elements of the ACA, which is why Heritage included it in their early proposal and why Romney supported it in Mass.

So they've boxed themselves in a corner where they can no longer support what is a common sense conservative position, just because Obama proposed it and so they had to oppose it.

 

[Conservative]

Actually it has everthing to do with it. France spends about 7% on its healthcare because in part.. they shift costs from healthcare to other government spending such as education of physicians, to social safety nets that allow people to retire earlier, allow them to take care of sick parents and children in the home etc.

That's a fact.. and its unspun, unvarnished and better.. logical.

Got it, as an individual growing up and wanting to be a doctor, that person always dreamed of being a Federal Employee? Have you bothered to find out what funds the Healthcare system in France? In addition you have a lower population, smaller military, much smaller budget in non healthcare items but that doesn't seem to matter to you

 

[jaeger19]

Again, you seem to believe it is the taxpayers responsibility to fund Charlie and all the others out there who don't have insurance through either choice or affordability? So really you don't care who pays just so you get paid? Thanks, that explains a lot. This is Charley's responsibility, then comes the family, then the community, then the charities, then the state, and as a last resort the Federal Taxpayers.

Yeah.. I don't really understand where you come up with your ideas on what I think because they are completely wrong.

I think that Charlie needs to be responsible for Charlie and that he should have some insurance so that he doesn't make ME end up with a giant bill to cover his lack of insurance. And no, I don't think the government needs to cover all the charlies. Some? Like children that can't get a job? YES... A young woman that's disabled and can't work, like my 24 year old college student who suffered a spinal cord injury? Yes. And that today is done at the state level with help from the federal government because Medicaid is administered by the states and the states on average pay about 43% of the cost.

but for a good number of charlies that CHOOSE to go without insurance... they need to get insurance or be penalized by the system.. that's the Idea of the Healthcare mandate and that's why it was designed by a conservative think tank and proposed as law by republicans.

Now.. do things need to be done to increase competition in the insurance market so that Charlie can get insurance at a reasonable cost? Sure.

And most of that has to be done at a federal level because at that end of the day.. healthcare and health insurance crosses state lines.

 

[jaeger19]

The fact is what you want is irrelevant for what is happening is the govt. is getting their foot into the door and eventually they will have the entire house. It was the desire of liberals to have a single payer system and yet they knew they couldn't sell that so they are incrementally working towards exactly that.

As for an IOU, somehow you believe that the money to cover those IOU's are going to magically appear from that money tree in the backyard. Where do you think that money is going to come from and to fund the govt. at the same time?

I am still waiting for you to show me where the Govt. has ever solved a social problem vs. just creating more dependence? If you solve a problem it goes away. We have over 100 million Americans dependent on some form of taxpayer assistance right now because of that govt. social engineering. I am sure you mean well but you are entirely naïve, gullible and misinformed.

:doh Seriously :doh

You claim you know that I want.. then you then when I prove to you that you are wrong about "what I want".. then you claim that what I want is irrelevant.

Listen man.. you have no clue about the ACA...

You go on about how intelligent and up on everything you are.... simple question''

HAVE YOU READ THE ACA?

Because I HAVE.

You want to ask when the government has ever solved a social problem? Easy... long term care and the elderly. The average life expectancy has steadily gone up.. and why is that? In part because of MEDICARE and Social Security. Now folks have a means to survive into their older age. Because of our healthcare system we have virtually eliminated some diseased and causes of death that plagued humans for thousands of years. You sir know not what you speak.

HECK... you would be likely to die much earlier if it was not for Medicare... and guess what... you only get it if you pay into it.. so its not dependency its insurance.