Obamacare takes first real step closer to repeal after Senate vote

[jonny5]

I'm not sure what you mean about "bad system" versus "good system."

But that it would be at a minimum inefficient was my point really. jt said it would be easy, and IMO it would be either impossible or stupid, take your pick.

I mean, when you have two systems, you have a socialist system, which everyone is forced into and produces equally poor results. And then some people also pay for a private system, which gives them better results. In a way we have this in the US. I pay for medicare, which I cant use (bad for me), and then I pay for obamacare, which I dont want, and then I pay for my HMO, which I like.

But yes, we agree.

 

[jonny5]

Everybody gets it. The GOP says it wants to blow a massive hole where the ACA is now, and it's natural to expect the same GOP blowing up the ACA to tell us their plan to replace.





Millions of people are getting insurance through ACA provisions. What happens to them?

I guess theyll have to pay for their own insurance.

 

[JasperL]

I guess theyll have to pay for their own insurance.

But millions simply cannot pay for their insurance, or for healthcare. You might as well say they have to wring blood from turnips.

 

[Linc]

I guess theyll have to pay for their own insurance.

16 GOP governors who took the federal money would like to disagree with you.

They're already feeling the heat of elections less than 22 months away .

 

[Linc]

But millions simply cannot pay for their insurance, or for healthcare. You might as well say they have to wring blood from turnips.

These are what the GOP screamed 'death panels'.

Let's see if DEMs can energize for GOP town halls as the GOP did in 2009 .

 

[JasperL]

I mean, when you have two systems, you have a socialist system, which everyone is forced into and produces equally poor results. And then some people also pay for a private system, which gives them better results. In a way we have this in the US. I pay for medicare, which I cant use (bad for me), and then I pay for obamacare, which I dont want, and then I pay for my HMO, which I like.

But yes, we agree.

To be clear, I don't think the choice really can be EITHER private OR public, but some combination. The only truly "public" system that I know of at least with developed countries is the UK system, in which government employed doctors and nurses and publicly owned hospitals provide at least most of the care. [Nearly] everywhere else, there is a large system of private providers, which is a good thing, often there exist private insurers, but with a public funding system, generally funded at least in part through payroll taxes but at any rate with premiums based on income.

Heck, in the U.S. we KNOW millions of the poor cannot pay for healthcare or insurance, so we'll always have a 'public' system to take care of them. Same for elderly retirees. We could voucherize Medicare, for example, but if that happens, the private insurers taking Medicare vouchers will be HIGHLY regulated with regard to pre-existing conditions and coverage, and so will still be at least largely publicly controlled entities but with some discretion to get a market edge on competitors.

 

[randel]

Yes they do and have. You have not been paying attention.
20010- Patient Choice Act
2012 Forbes Welcome
2014 - A Republican plan to replace ObamaCare, cover pre-existing conditions and lower costs | Fox News
2016 - Rand Paul Is Coming to the Rescue with an Obamacare Replacement Plan | The Fiscal Times

Just a few.

sorry, but creating 'health savings accounts' isnt going to work, and that seems to be a major component in republican circles...truth is , a vast majority of folks in this country would be able to put little, if anything, into this, and so what if you did put a few thousand back? one trip to the hospital can eat that up in a heartbeat, then where are you at? so no, these are not 'plans'...

 

[rocket88]

That is indeed the most shocking thing about repealing the ACA. They've had 6 years to come up with a replacement and still have nothing.

And they won't have one anytime soon. Take that to the bank.

 

[jonny5]

But millions simply cannot pay for their insurance, or for healthcare. You might as well say they have to wring blood from turnips.

Then I guess theyll have to ASK for help (not demand it).

 

[jonny5]

sorry, but creating 'health savings accounts' isnt going to work, and that seems to be a major component in republican circles...truth is , a vast majority of folks in this country would be able to put little, if anything, into this, and so what if you did put a few thousand back? one trip to the hospital can eat that up in a heartbeat, then where are you at? so no, these are not 'plans'...

Because you dont like them.

 

[jonny5]

To be clear, I don't think the choice really can be EITHER private OR public, but some combination. The only truly "public" system that I know of at least with developed countries is the UK system, in which government employed doctors and nurses and publicly owned hospitals provide at least most of the care. [Nearly] everywhere else, there is a large system of private providers, which is a good thing, often there exist private insurers, but with a public funding system, generally funded at least in part through payroll taxes but at any rate with premiums based on income.

Heck, in the U.S. we KNOW millions of the poor cannot pay for healthcare or insurance, so we'll always have a 'public' system to take care of them. Same for elderly retirees. We could voucherize Medicare, for example, but if that happens, the private insurers taking Medicare vouchers will be HIGHLY regulated with regard to pre-existing conditions and coverage, and so will still be at least largely publicly controlled entities but with some discretion to get a market edge on competitors.

Or we go to a states system. Do you what you want in your state. Leave me alone in mine. Its a win win. Im kind of sick of having to come up with a plan to take my freedom away.

 

[JasperL]

Then I guess theyll have to ASK for help (not demand it).

Yeah, OK, not going to happen because charity really can't make up the slack for healthcare for 10s of millions of the poor. But if you prefer to imagine an alternative reality, that is a reasonable option. I hope the GOP takes a more rational and realistic view.

 

[JasperL]

Or we go to a states system. Do you what you want in your state. Leave me alone in mine. Its a win win. Im kind of sick of having to come up with a plan to take my freedom away.

Yeah, I know, it's awful living in at least one of the wealthiest nations on earth. It's oppression and tyranny that you have to pay TAXES!! to enjoy the benefits of that. I'm boo hooing over here... :boohoo:

 

[randel]

Because you dont like them.

no, because in reality, it accomplishes nothing but put us back to where we were before aca, people going bankrupt/not getting needed health care because of expense....if you don't have employer healthcare, would you be able to take a hit of 10's of thousands of dollars, and do you feel that only the rich should have care available to them?

 

[jonny5]

Yeah, I know, it's awful living in at least one of the wealthiest nations on earth. It's oppression and tyranny that you have to pay TAXES!! to enjoy the benefits of that. I'm boo hooing over here... :boohoo:

Sarcasm is unconvincing. Maybe you should try getting consent instead.

 

[jonny5]

no, because in reality, it accomplishes nothing but put us back to where we were before aca, people going bankrupt/not getting needed health care because of expense....if you don't have employer healthcare, would you be able to take a hit of 10's of thousands of dollars, and do you feel that only the rich should have care available to them?

Strawmen. I work and pay for an HMO. So I dont have to take a hit of 10's of thousands of dollars. And there is no reality in which the rich would only have care. Nothing is stopping you from getting 100 of your middle class friends and hiring a doctor to take care of you. Except that youve been trained to be a sheep and accept whatever the govt tells you. That our current system is the only way to be.

 

[JasperL]

Sarcasm is unconvincing. Maybe you should try getting consent instead.

First you said the poor would just have to pay for their own insurance, but they can't, it's impossible. Then you said they'd just need to ask for help, but charity can't handle healthcare for 10s of millions. Then you ignored all of my comment and said move it to the states because freedom.

Bottom line is you have no interest in really examining the issue or care about doing anything about it - you're got your insurance, if other people cannot afford it, too bad I guess. Furthermore, a cost of living in a wealthy country is we WILL ultimately provide social safety nets for the poor, old, disabled. So you can whine about the freedom the taxes to fund that takes from you if you want, but it will do no good. And of course, the concept of 'freedom' doesn't mean a whole lot for someone who can't afford healthcare for themselves or their kids.

 

[randel]

Strawmen. I work and pay for an HMO. So I dont have to take a hit of 10's of thousands of dollars. And there is no reality in which the rich would only have care. Nothing is stopping you from getting 100 of your middle class friends and hiring a doctor to take care of you. Except that youve been trained to be a sheep and accept whatever the govt tells you. That our current system is the only way to be.

congrats, sounds like you have employer sponsored healthcare....not sure what reality you are living in , but yes, what i described is how it used to be, and with republicans looking to scrap the aca, and more and likely try and replace with 'hsa's' and 'vouchers', how it will be again...you have money, are well to do? have great insurance? great! step right up and we will get you the best care possible.....poor? try the emergency room, i'm sure they have a band aid for ya...pre-existing condition...yeah, about that, sorry about your luck, this insurance company aint payin' a damn dime, now scurry off and find somewhere to curl up and die.....we dont wanna give you the care we need, gotta protect our profits and multi million dollar executive salaries you know.

 

[randel]

First you said the poor would just have to pay for their own insurance, but they can't, it's impossible. Then you said they'd just need to ask for help, but charity can't handle healthcare for 10s of millions. Then you ignored all of my comment and said move it to the states because freedom.

Bottom line is you have no interest in really examining the issue or care about doing anything about it - you're got your insurance, if other people cannot afford it, too bad I guess. Furthermore, a cost of living in a wealthy country is we WILL ultimately provide social safety nets for the poor, old, disabled. So you can whine about the freedom the taxes to fund that takes from you if you want, but it will do no good. And of course, the concept of 'freedom' doesn't mean a whole lot for someone who can't afford healthcare for themselves or their kids.

seems to be the conservative mindset anymore, as long as i got mine, screw the rest of you.

 

[trouble13]

Bottom line is you have no interest in really examining the issue or care about doing anything about it - you're got your insurance, if other people cannot afford it, too bad I guess. Furthermore, a cost of living in a wealthy country is we WILL ultimately provide social safety nets for the poor, old, disabled. So you can whine about the freedom the taxes to fund that takes from you if you want, but it will do no good. And of course, the concept of 'freedom' doesn't mean a whole lot for someone who can't afford healthcare for themselves or their kids.

Do you have a real interest in discussing the issue? If you do please explain to me why the thing missing in the conversation is price control.

We are told the poor must be given the very best healthcare that other people's money can pay for, but what restrictions if any, do you recommend we put on the poor to keep the expenses controllable?

 

[JasperL]

Do you have a real interest in discussing the issue? If you do please explain to me why the thing missing in the conversation is price control.

We are told the poor must be given the very best healthcare that other people's money can pay for, but what restrictions if any, do you recommend we put on the poor to keep the expenses controllable?

I'm not sure who's telling you that the poor "must be given the very best healthcare." The ACA as you know includes significant cost sharing by the poor, and the most affordable policies come with significant restrictions on providers - the narrow networks and all that. Medicaid at least where I live is FAR from gold plated healthcare. If you're not poor, you really don't want Medicaid, but if that's all you can afford it's a potential lifesaver, although very inconvenient in some ways. So the solutions ALL come with pretty significant 'restrictions' as you call them, and I don't have a problem with that. It's obviously a difficult trade-off and one I'm not sure the ACA did very well, particularly for those who didn't qualify for subsidies.

The point is, though, that the ACA had plenty of 'restrictions' as does Medicaid and every other healthcare system for the poor. Not sure what else I can say about that.

 

[trouble13]

I'm not sure who's telling you that the poor "must be given the very best healthcare." The ACA as you know includes significant cost sharing by the poor, and the most affordable policies come with significant restrictions on providers - the narrow networks and all that. Medicaid at least where I live is FAR from gold plated healthcare. If you're not poor, you really don't want Medicaid, but if that's all you can afford it's a potential lifesaver, although very inconvenient in some ways. So the solutions ALL come with pretty significant 'restrictions' as you call them, and I don't have a problem with that. It's obviously a difficult trade-off and one I'm not sure the ACA did very well, particularly for those who didn't qualify for subsidies.

The point is, though, that the ACA had plenty of 'restrictions' as does Medicaid and every other healthcare system for the poor. Not sure what else I can say about that.

Im sorry i must not of stated it clearly. Im not saying anyone is demanding the poor recieve the very best healthcare available. I was saying people are demanding they be provided with the best healthcare the rest of us can afford. Reality is that we are paying more than we can afford. And borrowing money to pay for it.

A common complaint i hear is that nobody should go bankrupt from needing a medical service. My question is why the hell not?

Im not saying we as a society should not be looking for ways to make healthcare as affordable as possible. Thats fine.

What im saying is i cant think of something more valuable than ones health. Without it you die. I consider that more valuable than my house, car, and all the luxries i live with.

If you want to avoid those costs live a healthier lifestyle and maybe you will get lucky and avoid those bills. If you do need those services the ones providing it certainly should be able to sue you and garnish your wages to get their money, no?

Imo the poor are not entitled to recieve treatment they cant afford and make no effort to repay that debt.

Out of compassion however i would offer them a barebones treatment package.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[iguanaman]

I would have to find it I saw an article somewhere.
It would setup HSA accounts and issue tax credits based on age to people along with
kids on the plan. (income was irrelevant).

I need to find it again.

SO people are able to shop around for the best coverage possible.
expanding the HSA system will cut down on costs.

repealing the mandated coverage will reduce prices as well.

different people have different needs. Men have different healthcare needs than women.
obamacare shoved everyone into the same boat and sent prices soaring.

Because prices never "soared" before the ACA? There is nothing in any Republicans plan that will reduce the costs of HC or allow lower income people to afford one. Tax breaks are useless for 47% of us since we don't make enough to pay taxes and removing the employer mandate will allow employers stop paying for it too.

 

[ludin]

Because prices never "soared" before the ACA? There is nothing in any Republicans plan that will reduce the costs of HC or allow lower income people to afford one. Tax breaks are useless for 47% of us since we don't make enough to pay taxes and removing the employer mandate will allow employers stop paying for it too.

typical liberal argument. argue something that was never argued and act like it means something.

The fact is that obamacare has caused rates to rise faster than what they were this is pretty much a given.
anywhere from 20-40% increases since it was enacted.

tax credits are not tax breaks please know what you are talking about before trying to make an argument.

 

[jonny5]

First you said the poor would just have to pay for their own insurance, but they can't, it's impossible. Then you said they'd just need to ask for help, but charity can't handle healthcare for 10s of millions. Then you ignored all of my comment and said move it to the states because freedom.

Bottom line is you have no interest in really examining the issue or care about doing anything about it - you're got your insurance, if other people cannot afford it, too bad I guess. Furthermore, a cost of living in a wealthy country is we WILL ultimately provide social safety nets for the poor, old, disabled. So you can whine about the freedom the taxes to fund that takes from you if you want, but it will do no good. And of course, the concept of 'freedom' doesn't mean a whole lot for someone who can't afford healthcare for themselves or their kids.

Not my problem. I only ever agreed to fund protection from violence and freedom to pursue happiness. If you want anything else, get consent.