Collins draws contrast with Trump on Russia, Affordable Care Act

[danarhea]

U.S. Sen. Susan Collins on Monday drew a contrast with President-elect Donald Trump over relations with Russia and reiterated her opposition to repealing the Affordable Care Act without a viable replacement in hand, two key issues that are expected to be political flash points early in the Trump presidency.

Ah, a voice of sanity inside the Party of Extremism. With her and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee bucking the party, it will only take one more Republican Senate vote to derail their plans to get rid of Obamacare without some kind of viable replacement being immediately available. My bet is that Obamacare is here to stay, at least for now. I also bet that Collins and Alexander will be primaried as soon as they come up for reelection.

Collins draws contrast with Trump on Russia, Affordable Care Act - The Portland Press Herald

 

[Chomsky]

Ah, a voice of sanity inside the Party of Extremism. With her and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee bucking the party, it will only take one more Republican Senate vote to derail their plans to get rid of Obamacare without some kind of viable replacement being immediately available. My bet is that Obamacare is here to stay, at least for now. I also bet that Collins and Alexander will be primaried as soon as they come up for reelection.

Collins draws contrast with Trump on Russia, Affordable Care Act - The Portland Press Herald

Even if they claim it's going, it will be a false hoorah where it's scheduled for a demise years down the road, where it can then be delayed or amended in such a way it's really not gone.

But I'd like it gone. I want it turned into single-payer.

 

[DiAnna]

I've always liked Susan Collins. She has a brain, knows how to use it, and doesn't carry a copy of the party platform to tell her what she thinks.

 

[PirateMk1]

Even if they claim it's going, it will be a false hoorah where it's scheduled for a demise years down the road, where it can then be delayed or amended in such a way it's really not gone.

But I'd like it gone. I want it turned into single-payer.

If you want single payer then you will need an amendment to the constitution were we have vast majorities going along with it. Otherwise it will end up like Obama Care were people hate just because of the ****ed up way it was passed. I am personally ambivalent on the notion of single payer. I just want the law to be constitutional and voted for by a large majority so there is consensus. The lack of consensus is part of Obama Cares problem.

 

[Captain Adverse]

If you want single payer then you will need an amendment to the constitution were we have vast majorities going along with it. Otherwise it will end up like Obama Care were people hate just because of the ****ed up way it was passed. I am personally ambivalent on the notion of single payer. I just want the law to be constitutional and voted for by a large majority so there is consensus. The lack of consensus is part of Obama Cares problem.

Why would we need an amendment to the Constitution? We didn't need it to set up Social Security, Medicaid, or Medicare.

Health and Education are my two principal "Left-leaning" issues.

I believe that government should provide medical coverage through citizen taxation, at least for common ailments and injuries. This should include preventive care like annual physicals and vaccinations. A healthy population is a more content and capable one.

I also believe that a common basic education is a proper function of government, to insure a national standard of knowledge enabling citizens to make informed decisions.

I don't see why either of these would require a constitutional amendment to put into action.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Even if they claim it's going, it will be a false hoorah where it's scheduled for a demise years down the road, where it can then be delayed or amended in such a way it's really not gone.

But I'd like it gone. I want it turned into single-payer.

Why not have your state do that? I am sure that most would support that - which is why so many states did that.

 

[LowDown]

Ah, a voice of sanity inside the Party of Extremism. With her and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee bucking the party, it will only take one more Republican Senate vote to derail their plans to get rid of Obamacare without some kind of viable replacement being immediately available. My bet is that Obamacare is here to stay, at least for now. I also bet that Collins and Alexander will be primaried as soon as they come up for reelection.

Collins draws contrast with Trump on Russia, Affordable Care Act - The Portland Press Herald

We always knew that Trump would have trouble getting moderate Republicans to go along with his agenda. That's where his skill at working a deal should be helpful. What he will get in the end will be much more muted and reasonable. No doubt the deal will include some sort of replacement for the ACA.

 

[LowDown]

Even if they claim it's going, it will be a false hoorah where it's scheduled for a demise years down the road, where it can then be delayed or amended in such a way it's really not gone.

But I'd like it gone. I want it turned into single-payer.

Single payer isn't the free ticket some folks think it is. It comes with disadvantages. Do you like care at the VA with long wait times, lack of access to newer medications, care by a team rather than an individual provider (You are assigned to a clinic; you never know who will be seeing you in your next visit)? Then you'll love single payer.

Single payer should be good at taking care of common, chronic diseases like diabetes and hypertension. In this way it will probably improve overall morbidity and mortality in the population. Where it probably won't be so good is in taking care of uncommon, expensive problems like some forms of cancer, but then that will have little effect on overall mortality in the population.

Instead of rituxumab for your rheumatoid arthritis ($10,000 a dose), you'll just get predisone (2 cents a pill). Just as effective most of the time but with more side effects.

 

[bubbabgone]

Even if they claim it's going, it will be a false hoorah where it's scheduled for a demise years down the road, where it can then be delayed or amended in such a way it's really not gone.

But I'd like it gone. I want it turned into single-payer.

Just as Single Payer has always been the somewhat unspoken Democrat plan with ACA being the first step, repeal and replace has always been the spoken Republican plan ... Susan Collins' "flash points" notwithstanding.
She does like to burnish her media appeal as "a Republican but one of the good ones" as often as possible using these kinds of statements.

 

[Greenbeard]

My bet is that Obamacare is here to stay, at least for now.

The GOP has already made it clear this is the case.

 

[poweRob]

Just as Single Payer has always been the somewhat unspoken Democrat plan with ACA being the first step, repeal and replace has always been the spoken Republican plan ... Susan Collins' "flash points" notwithstanding.
She does like to burnish her media appeal as "a Republican but one of the good ones" as often as possible using these kinds of statements.

Single payer is a plan. Repeal and replace is not. It is an action with no plan.

 

[Greenbeard]

Single payer is a plan. Repeal and replace is not. It is an action with no plan.

"Empty slogan" is also an acceptable answer.

 

[Helix]

I want it turned into single-payer.

same here.

 

[code1211]

Why would we need an amendment to the Constitution? We didn't need it to set up Social Security, Medicaid, or Medicare.

Health and Education are my two principal "Left-leaning" issues.

I believe that government should provide medical coverage through citizen taxation, at least for common ailments and injuries. This should include preventive care like annual physicals and vaccinations. A healthy population is a more content and capable one.

I also believe that a common basic education is a proper function of government, to insure a national standard of knowledge enabling citizens to make informed decisions.

I don't see why either of these would require a constitutional amendment to put into action.

This seems to be outside a constructionist reading of the Constitution. It also seems to be in violation of the Tenth Amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
<snip>
The Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[5]
<snip>

Is there a clause int he Constitution that reserves health care and education to the Feds?

 

[bubbabgone]

Single payer is a plan. Repeal and replace is not. It is an action with no plan.

"Empty slogan" is also an acceptable answer.

same here.

Those thoughts seem to ignore the fact that as of now there is no written Federal Single Payer legislation pending.
And it's not pending because it would have to replace ACA.
And in order to replace ACA it would have to consider anyone who enrolled in ACA.
Same thing as Repeal and Replace.
Actually, it's more like Replace then Repeal.
That means Single Payer is no closer to legislation than Replace then Repeal.
Granted ... given the ACA, the Federal and State Exchanges, and other Federal programs were always intended as a move toward S.P. that step would be shorter if it were ever to be.
But Hillary lost and the Senate and House are still gone.
You're gonna have to wait a bit more.
And then we'll be talking about how difficult it would be to replace a program designed for personal choice in healthcare.

 

[Greenbeard]

Those thoughts seem to ignore the fact that as of now there is no written Federal Single Payer legislation pending.

You mistake me for a single-payer advocate. But the fact is, there's always single-payer legislation introduced in Congress.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/676

 

[PirateMk1]

Why would we need an amendment to the Constitution? We didn't need it to set up Social Security, Medicaid, or Medicare.

Health and Education are my two principal "Left-leaning" issues.

I believe that government should provide medical coverage through citizen taxation, at least for common ailments and injuries. This should include preventive care like annual physicals and vaccinations. A healthy population is a more content and capable one.

I also believe that a common basic education is a proper function of government, to insure a national standard of knowledge enabling citizens to make informed decisions.

I don't see why either of these would require a constitutional amendment to put into action.

Medicare and Social Security are NOT technically constitutional. They are considered a tax, and charitable giving by the supreme court. That's not how they were passed or sold to the public at large. Which means the government can deny you those benefits without recourse. Those benefits and any others should be ,if the country wants them, passed via the amendment process so everyone has a clear idea of what it is we are doing and covering and to guarantee those benefits and to also generate a consensus of agreement so that in general the society is on board and there is little resentment amongst those who oppose as they are clearly in a very small minority. All major changes in the function of our government should go through the amendment process IMO.

I am not opposed to basic medical coverage of some type. I just don't want some bastardized bull**** Obama Care passed in the middle of the night no one knowing what they just passed.

 

[code1211]

Single payer is a plan. Repeal and replace is not. It is an action with no plan.

The new Secretary of HHS has been advancing and refining a replacement of the ACA since it was originally swindled into existence.

With respect, Obamacare is the definition of a legislative action with no plan as evidenced by the various changes to the law that had to be passed to find out what's in it including delays, changes and court rulings that have been implemented.

70 Changes to ObamaCare… — So Far – Galen Institute

Tom Price is the new Secretary of HHS and has pretty well defined alternative ready to be implemented.

Tom Price, Trump's Pick For HHS, Has An Obamacare Alternative In Mind : Shots - Health News : NPR

https://tomprice.house.gov/HR2300

http://tomprice.house.gov/sites/tom...R 2300 Empowering Patients First Act 2015.pdf

 

[code1211]

You mistake me for a single-payer advocate. But the fact is, there's always single-payer legislation introduced in Congress.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/676

From the first line of this bill:

"Establishes the Medicare for All Program to provide all individuals residing in the United States and U.S. territories with free health care..."

Any government legislation that claims to be "free" is, obviously, either a lie or a swindle.

In this case, my money is on swindle.

 

[bubbabgone]

You mistake me for a single-payer advocate. But the fact is, there's always single-payer legislation introduced in Congress.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/676

Oh yeah. I know. But the point was that it would have to replace something as it exists when the replacement is to be enacted and it would have to be changed in order to do that.

 

[poweRob]

The new Secretary of HHS has been advancing and refining a replacement of the ACA since it was originally swindled into existence.

With respect, Obamacare is the definition of a legislative action with no plan as evidenced by the various changes to the law that had to be passed to find out what's in it including delays, changes and court rulings that have been implemented.

70 Changes to ObamaCare… — So Far – Galen Institute

Tom Price is the new Secretary of HHS and has pretty well defined alternative ready to be implemented.

Tom Price, Trump's Pick For HHS, Has An Obamacare Alternative In Mind : Shots - Health News : NPR

https://tomprice.house.gov/HR2300

http://tomprice.house.gov/sites/tom...R 2300 Empowering Patients First Act 2015.pdf

Your suggestion that changes made to it somehow defines it as action with no plan makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Helix]

Those thoughts seem to ignore the fact that as of now there is no written Federal Single Payer legislation pending.
And it's not pending because it would have to replace ACA.
And in order to replace ACA it would have to consider anyone who enrolled in ACA.
Same thing as Repeal and Replace.
Actually, it's more like Replace then Repeal.
That means Single Payer is no closer to legislation than Replace then Repeal.
Granted ... given the ACA, the Federal and State Exchanges, and other Federal programs were always intended as a move toward S.P. that step would be shorter if it were ever to be.
But Hillary lost and the Senate and House are still gone.
You're gonna have to wait a bit more.
And then we'll be talking about how difficult it would be to replace a program designed for personal choice in healthcare.

single payer was already going to take decades. now it is probably even further away. personally, i'm just hoping that they don't ruin medicare with their cuts and privatization schemes.

Truman tried to fix it during his presidency. had he succeeded, it would be the norm now, and only fringe hyperpartisans would be arguing to dismantle it. one thing's for sure, though : no one would be arguing to replace it with employer specific insurance which you lose when you change jobs, and which varies wildly depending on where you live and who you work for. think about that.

 

[code1211]

Your suggestion that changes made to it somehow defines it as action with no plan makes absolutely no sense.

Only if you refuse to see the sense.

This monstrosity as written was simply to big to get it right. If this was to be done, it should have been done in baby steps.

As I understand it, people like to have health insurance.

The qualities of the ACA that people seem to like are:

that "kids" be insured under their parent's plan to age 26,

there's coverage for preexisting conditions and

there is coverage portability.

Contrast those 30 or so words in that sentence against the more than 1 million words of regulations that have had to be written to clarify and define the law AFTER IT WAS PASSED!

11,588,500 Words: Obamacare Regs 30x as Long as Law
<snip>
That means unelected federal officials have now written 30 words of regulations for each word in the law.
<snip>

 

[bubbabgone]

Only if you refuse to see the sense.

This monstrosity as written was simply to big to get it right. If this was to be done, it should have been done in baby steps.

As I understand it, people like to have health insurance.

The qualities of the ACA that people seem to like are:

that "kids" be insured under their parent's plan to age 26,

there's coverage for preexisting conditions and

there is coverage portability.

Contrast those 30 or so words in that sentence against the more than 1 million words of regulations that have had to be written to clarify and define the law AFTER IT WAS PASSED!

11,588,500 Words: Obamacare Regs 30x as Long as Law
<snip>
That means unelected federal officials have now written 30 words of regulations for each word in the law.
<snip>

Kinda makes a person think there was something else intended when it was said "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage and, basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever. But basically that was really critical to getting the thing to pass."

 

[Captain Adverse]

Medicare and Social Security are NOT technically constitutional. They are considered a tax, and charitable giving by the supreme court. That's not how they were passed or sold to the public at large. Which means the government can deny you those benefits without recourse. Those benefits and any others should be ,if the country wants them, passed via the amendment process so everyone has a clear idea of what it is we are doing and covering and to guarantee those benefits and to also generate a consensus of agreement so that in general the society is on board and there is little resentment amongst those who oppose as they are clearly in a very small minority. All major changes in the function of our government should go through the amendment process IMO.

I am not opposed to basic medical coverage of some type. I just don't want some bastardized bull**** Obama Care passed in the middle of the night no one knowing what they just passed.

Ah, but recall that we have allowed the Supreme Court to decide what is "technically Constitutional" via the judicial review doctrine established under Marbury v. Madison.

It would take a Constitutional Amendment (or a SCOTUS decision overturning this doctrine) to change that.

This seems to be outside a constructionist reading of the Constitution. It also seems to be in violation of the Tenth Amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
<snip>
The Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[5]
<snip>

Is there a clause int he Constitution that reserves health care and education to the Feds?

A single payer health care law doesn't "reserve healthcare to the Feds" any more than Social Security reserved pension plans to the Feds.

It is justifiable under the same "tax and spend" ruling that allowed Social Security.

The government can set up a tax specifically to provide for healthcare. Then under the regulation of interstate commerce can set cost limits for non-catastrophic healthcare examinations, treatments, and medications when spending that money.

Did setting up the VA healthcare system require a Constitutional amendment? No because it did not prevent free-enterprise competition, private insurance coverage, etc.

IMO it would only require a Constitutional amendment if the government tried to end all competition and free enterprise and take full control of all aspects of medicine.