|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 25 2017 01:50 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 01:10 Acrofales wrote:On March 25 2017 00:50 mahrgell wrote:On March 25 2017 00:08 Acrofales wrote:On March 24 2017 22:19 mahrgell wrote:
Well... I think this discussion isn't entirely honest by both sides, with very different interpretations of what health care insurance should do.
And I often feel both sides exactly know those differences, but to score political points (or "win" forum discussions) they pretend they would not know about it and interpret everything the other side says in their own interpretation which makes it obviously bullocks.
In the end, insurances are always about risk balancing. In the event of harm, you won't bankrupt over medical bills. But which risks should be balanced?
Interpretation A:
All the risks to society should be rebalanced to everyone. Pretty much what is used in most of Europe. Mens won't get pregnant, still their premium includes the rebalance cost for it. I don't go skiing, but still pay for all those idiots breaking their legs every winter and needing a rescue chopper, then surgery and 4 weeks in hospital etc.
This system also is often combined with a must-have insurance, as with the payment measured by societal averages the correct "play" would often be to only join the insurance when you are in a phase where your personal risks are above those averages. (e.g. before trying to get pregnant or going on a 3 week skiing vacation)
So there will always be participants in the system for which the insurance is, on a personal level, +EV, and some for which it is -EV.
The issue with preexisting conditions only touches changes of plans (which still exist in some, although less impactful forms) but as you are forced into insurance at all times, most minimum needs should generally be covered.
Interpretation B:
Everyones insurance rebalances only his own personal risks. Now you only manage your own risks. This is not to share risks amongst the society but just make sure you don't bankrupt over medical bills and smoothen your health expenses over time. It is up to you if you want to be insured against sport accidents, pregnancy related issues, various forms of cancer etc.
With this model there is absolutely no need to force participation in the model. As the premium is (or should be, if the insurer is doing his job) calculated on your personal risk levels it is up to you what you want to be covered and if you want any insurance at all. In any case, for every participant the insurance always should be +- 0 EV (ignoring the profit margin for the insurer)
Also the issue with preexisting conditions is a much larger one in this model, as you may simply be without any cover at all, if you gambled wrong here.
Now living under A and knowing it's benefit I admittedly prefer A. But I can actually accept that people may consider the goal of health insurance to be different and favor the solution of B.
But what is dishonest is to take someones argument for B, then measure it against the goals of A and then declare victory over this person and its points. Or vice versa.
So before you go at each others throats of whether you consider it fair that this or that should be covered... Maybe you should argue first about the goal of health insurance,and at what level risks should be redistributed. At a societal level or only on a personal one.
Except that if you are a person who interprets it as B, you should also accept that if you gambled wrong and didn't get insured for <insert rare disease>, and you get that disease, then you can either pay for the treatment yourself, or should just die, and not be a burden on society. Moreover, poor people who cannot afford insurance that includes coverage for rare diseases, but get those rare diseases are simply destined to die. In other words: you are a social Darwinist. If you don't accept this as an acceptable outcome of your model, then stop arguing insurance model B. Given that most people here are assuming that lettng people die in the streets because they are poor is unacceptable in civilized society, it is very hard to justify any argument in favor of model B. Thanks for providing an example post of what I meant with dishonest arguments... Your example is deeply flawed: If the poor person can not afford the coverage of the rare disease under B, then you don't help him by forcing him to buy it anyway. So how exactly do you help him under model B. He is not insured (couldn't afford insurance, or in your own words *gambled wrong*). And paying for care is not an option. He either gets free treatment or slowly wastes away (possibly in agony due to not being able to afford pain medication either) and then dies. Wonderful example. so we have: B: Guy cant afford insurance, thus doesn't have it, gets sick -> problem A: Guy can't afford insurance, but has it anyway -> all great. Again, the problem is not, that he didn't have the insurance, but that he couldn't afford it. You don't remove this problem by stating that if he would have bought it anyway (or was forced to) all things are suddenly great.. But if this is the foundation of your argument... good job. Maybe before starting to discuss whether you choose A or B you should discuss about enabling him to afford it. Once you made sure that everyone could afford it. (which, as stated earlier is a different topic) you get to the other problem. The dilemma of "what if you gambled wrong". This is simply a problem of conflicting morales. You either sacrifice the right of "you can do whatever stupid or risky thing you want like skiing, traveling to North Korea or skipping on health insurance" or you sacrifice parts of the morale obligation of society to care for those who are in deep shit under any circumstances. But you can't have both at 100%. And different people have different opinions on this. But of course you can always pretend that only the other side is sacrificing rights/morales. Reminds me of a German couple. They were sailing across the world, were warned not to sail in certain areas, did it anyway. Got kidnapped by pirates, bought free by Germany, got a more severe warning to really not sail in certain areas. Guess what... They did it again, got kidnapped again, this time they were not bought free. Now they are dead.
Except that you run into problems when you want to subsidize people under the B model.
Lets work with the very simple situation where there is exactly 1 condition with a 1 in a million chance of getting it. That condition costs $100m to treat, or in other words, there is an average health care cost of $100 per person. In Model A, we say everybody has to be insured for $100, and if you can't pay it, there are subsidies, etc. to help yout out.
Under Model B we could do the same. Except that insurance companies have figured out that the chance of getting this disease is not uniform over the population. It is more prevalent in men over 50 than among others. So the insurance companies charge men over 50 $200 premium and everybody else only $80 (assuming that men over 50 are 33% of the population). Now the average cost to treat the whole population is still $100, so that's still the maximum subsidy we are willing to give. But now poor men over 50 can no longer afford their insurance.
Now of course, we could be cleverer as the government and use the same model as the insurance companies. But now we need extra bureaucrats to not only check whether people are poor, but to keep our risk models accurate.
But there's more. The next year the insurance companies figure out that the risk also depends on behaviour patterns (smoking, drinking, fatty foods). So when you sign up for a new insurance they now ask you about these behaviours. If you smoke, drink, or have a BMI over 23, you now have to pay $400 for the insurance. Should the government model take that into account?
In the end, you either end up with social Darwinism of the form: if you have certain behaviours (moreover, these behaviours are also correlated with poverty) and are poor, you simply do not get treatment for the disease that you are more likely to contract. Or the government has to ask all the same questions as the insurance company to ensure everybody is covered.
Now of course, if you are < 50, and don't smoke, etc., model B looks fantastic: you only have to pay a $50 premium, which reflects your situation of prime health. Now if you're poor, you don't give a shit: the government pays your $50, and would have payed up to $100. But if you're not poor, you saved yourself $50 in comparison to model A!
However, that comes at either (a) increased government bureaucracy in order to allocate the subsidies where they have to go or (b) poor people dying of this curable disease. Given that almost everybody in favour of model B is also in favour of cutting government jobs left, right and center, I think we will end up with outcome (b), don't you?
|
On March 25 2017 03:27 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 01:50 mahrgell wrote:On March 25 2017 01:10 Acrofales wrote:On March 25 2017 00:50 mahrgell wrote:On March 25 2017 00:08 Acrofales wrote:On March 24 2017 22:19 mahrgell wrote:
Well... I think this discussion isn't entirely honest by both sides, with very different interpretations of what health care insurance should do.
And I often feel both sides exactly know those differences, but to score political points (or "win" forum discussions) they pretend they would not know about it and interpret everything the other side says in their own interpretation which makes it obviously bullocks.
In the end, insurances are always about risk balancing. In the event of harm, you won't bankrupt over medical bills. But which risks should be balanced?
Interpretation A:
All the risks to society should be rebalanced to everyone. Pretty much what is used in most of Europe. Mens won't get pregnant, still their premium includes the rebalance cost for it. I don't go skiing, but still pay for all those idiots breaking their legs every winter and needing a rescue chopper, then surgery and 4 weeks in hospital etc.
This system also is often combined with a must-have insurance, as with the payment measured by societal averages the correct "play" would often be to only join the insurance when you are in a phase where your personal risks are above those averages. (e.g. before trying to get pregnant or going on a 3 week skiing vacation)
So there will always be participants in the system for which the insurance is, on a personal level, +EV, and some for which it is -EV.
The issue with preexisting conditions only touches changes of plans (which still exist in some, although less impactful forms) but as you are forced into insurance at all times, most minimum needs should generally be covered.
Interpretation B:
Everyones insurance rebalances only his own personal risks. Now you only manage your own risks. This is not to share risks amongst the society but just make sure you don't bankrupt over medical bills and smoothen your health expenses over time. It is up to you if you want to be insured against sport accidents, pregnancy related issues, various forms of cancer etc.
With this model there is absolutely no need to force participation in the model. As the premium is (or should be, if the insurer is doing his job) calculated on your personal risk levels it is up to you what you want to be covered and if you want any insurance at all. In any case, for every participant the insurance always should be +- 0 EV (ignoring the profit margin for the insurer)
Also the issue with preexisting conditions is a much larger one in this model, as you may simply be without any cover at all, if you gambled wrong here.
Now living under A and knowing it's benefit I admittedly prefer A. But I can actually accept that people may consider the goal of health insurance to be different and favor the solution of B.
But what is dishonest is to take someones argument for B, then measure it against the goals of A and then declare victory over this person and its points. Or vice versa.
So before you go at each others throats of whether you consider it fair that this or that should be covered... Maybe you should argue first about the goal of health insurance,and at what level risks should be redistributed. At a societal level or only on a personal one.
Except that if you are a person who interprets it as B, you should also accept that if you gambled wrong and didn't get insured for <insert rare disease>, and you get that disease, then you can either pay for the treatment yourself, or should just die, and not be a burden on society. Moreover, poor people who cannot afford insurance that includes coverage for rare diseases, but get those rare diseases are simply destined to die. In other words: you are a social Darwinist. If you don't accept this as an acceptable outcome of your model, then stop arguing insurance model B. Given that most people here are assuming that lettng people die in the streets because they are poor is unacceptable in civilized society, it is very hard to justify any argument in favor of model B. Thanks for providing an example post of what I meant with dishonest arguments... Your example is deeply flawed: If the poor person can not afford the coverage of the rare disease under B, then you don't help him by forcing him to buy it anyway. So how exactly do you help him under model B. He is not insured (couldn't afford insurance, or in your own words *gambled wrong*). And paying for care is not an option. He either gets free treatment or slowly wastes away (possibly in agony due to not being able to afford pain medication either) and then dies. Wonderful example. so we have: B: Guy cant afford insurance, thus doesn't have it, gets sick -> problem A: Guy can't afford insurance, but has it anyway -> all great. Again, the problem is not, that he didn't have the insurance, but that he couldn't afford it. You don't remove this problem by stating that if he would have bought it anyway (or was forced to) all things are suddenly great.. But if this is the foundation of your argument... good job. Maybe before starting to discuss whether you choose A or B you should discuss about enabling him to afford it. Once you made sure that everyone could afford it. (which, as stated earlier is a different topic) you get to the other problem. The dilemma of "what if you gambled wrong". This is simply a problem of conflicting morales. You either sacrifice the right of "you can do whatever stupid or risky thing you want like skiing, traveling to North Korea or skipping on health insurance" or you sacrifice parts of the morale obligation of society to care for those who are in deep shit under any circumstances. But you can't have both at 100%. And different people have different opinions on this. But of course you can always pretend that only the other side is sacrificing rights/morales. Reminds me of a German couple. They were sailing across the world, were warned not to sail in certain areas, did it anyway. Got kidnapped by pirates, bought free by Germany, got a more severe warning to really not sail in certain areas. Guess what... They did it again, got kidnapped again, this time they were not bought free. Now they are dead. Except that you run into problems when you want to subsidize people under the B model. Lets work with the very simple situation where there is exactly 1 condition with a 1 in a million chance of getting it. That condition costs $100m to treat, or in other words, there is an average health care cost of $100 per person. In Model A, we say everybody has to be insured for $100, and if you can't pay it, there are subsidies, etc. to help yout out. Under Model B we could do the same. Except that insurance companies have figured out that the chance of getting this disease is not uniform over the population. It is more prevalent in men over 50 than among others. So the insurance companies charge men over 50 $200 premium and everybody else only $80 (assuming that men over 50 are 33% of the population). Now the average cost to treat the whole population is still $100, so that's still the maximum subsidy we are willing to give. But now poor men over 50 can no longer afford their insurance. Now of course, we could be cleverer as the government and use the same model as the insurance companies. But now we need extra bureaucrats to not only check whether people are poor, but to keep our risk models accurate. But there's more. The next year the insurance companies figure out that the risk also depends on behaviour patterns (smoking, drinking, fatty foods). So when you sign up for a new insurance they now ask you about these behaviours. If you smoke, drink, or have a BMI over 23, you now have to pay $400 for the insurance. Should the government model take that into account? In the end, you either end up with social Darwinism of the form: if you have certain behaviours (moreover, these behaviours are also correlated with poverty) and are poor, you simply do not get treatment for the disease that you are more likely to contract. Or the government has to ask all the same questions as the insurance company to ensure everybody is covered. Now of course, if you are < 50, and don't smoke, etc., model B looks fantastic: you only have to pay a $50 premium, which reflects your situation of prime health. Now if you're poor, you don't give a shit: the government pays your $50, and would have payed up to $100. But if you're not poor, you saved yourself $50 in comparison to model A! However, that comes at either (a) increased government bureaucracy in order to allocate the subsidies where they have to go or (b) poor people dying of this curable disease. Given that almost everybody in favour of model B is also in favour of cutting government jobs left, right and center, I think we will end up with outcome (b), don't you?
In this example you imposed a mandated health insurance for the entire population in your exercise. Most who would prefer model B would be against any kind of mandate (an assumption on my part to be sure, but I think it holds true). As such, a portion of the healthy would rather pay nothing as they don't feel the need to have insurance, and the cost of those over 50, skyrockets beyond your numbers.
|
I wish the government had already built up a database of QALY data that could be easily used and cited for deciding how much to cover stuff.
|
On March 25 2017 03:46 zlefin wrote:
I wish the government had already built up a database of QALY data that could be easily used and cited for deciding how much to cover stuff.
Are they rolling back the data requirements of the ACA with this bill? I haven't heard or read anything on that...
|
The GOP's attempt at Healthcare is like a student procrastinating then pulling an all nighter to get a 20 page paper done.
|
On March 25 2017 03:45 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 03:27 Acrofales wrote:On March 25 2017 01:50 mahrgell wrote:On March 25 2017 01:10 Acrofales wrote:On March 25 2017 00:50 mahrgell wrote:On March 25 2017 00:08 Acrofales wrote:On March 24 2017 22:19 mahrgell wrote:
Well... I think this discussion isn't entirely honest by both sides, with very different interpretations of what health care insurance should do.
And I often feel both sides exactly know those differences, but to score political points (or "win" forum discussions) they pretend they would not know about it and interpret everything the other side says in their own interpretation which makes it obviously bullocks.
In the end, insurances are always about risk balancing. In the event of harm, you won't bankrupt over medical bills. But which risks should be balanced?
Interpretation A:
All the risks to society should be rebalanced to everyone. Pretty much what is used in most of Europe. Mens won't get pregnant, still their premium includes the rebalance cost for it. I don't go skiing, but still pay for all those idiots breaking their legs every winter and needing a rescue chopper, then surgery and 4 weeks in hospital etc.
This system also is often combined with a must-have insurance, as with the payment measured by societal averages the correct "play" would often be to only join the insurance when you are in a phase where your personal risks are above those averages. (e.g. before trying to get pregnant or going on a 3 week skiing vacation)
So there will always be participants in the system for which the insurance is, on a personal level, +EV, and some for which it is -EV.
The issue with preexisting conditions only touches changes of plans (which still exist in some, although less impactful forms) but as you are forced into insurance at all times, most minimum needs should generally be covered.
Interpretation B:
Everyones insurance rebalances only his own personal risks. Now you only manage your own risks. This is not to share risks amongst the society but just make sure you don't bankrupt over medical bills and smoothen your health expenses over time. It is up to you if you want to be insured against sport accidents, pregnancy related issues, various forms of cancer etc.
With this model there is absolutely no need to force participation in the model. As the premium is (or should be, if the insurer is doing his job) calculated on your personal risk levels it is up to you what you want to be covered and if you want any insurance at all. In any case, for every participant the insurance always should be +- 0 EV (ignoring the profit margin for the insurer)
Also the issue with preexisting conditions is a much larger one in this model, as you may simply be without any cover at all, if you gambled wrong here.
Now living under A and knowing it's benefit I admittedly prefer A. But I can actually accept that people may consider the goal of health insurance to be different and favor the solution of B.
But what is dishonest is to take someones argument for B, then measure it against the goals of A and then declare victory over this person and its points. Or vice versa.
So before you go at each others throats of whether you consider it fair that this or that should be covered... Maybe you should argue first about the goal of health insurance,and at what level risks should be redistributed. At a societal level or only on a personal one.
Except that if you are a person who interprets it as B, you should also accept that if you gambled wrong and didn't get insured for <insert rare disease>, and you get that disease, then you can either pay for the treatment yourself, or should just die, and not be a burden on society. Moreover, poor people who cannot afford insurance that includes coverage for rare diseases, but get those rare diseases are simply destined to die. In other words: you are a social Darwinist. If you don't accept this as an acceptable outcome of your model, then stop arguing insurance model B. Given that most people here are assuming that lettng people die in the streets because they are poor is unacceptable in civilized society, it is very hard to justify any argument in favor of model B. Thanks for providing an example post of what I meant with dishonest arguments... Your example is deeply flawed: If the poor person can not afford the coverage of the rare disease under B, then you don't help him by forcing him to buy it anyway. So how exactly do you help him under model B. He is not insured (couldn't afford insurance, or in your own words *gambled wrong*). And paying for care is not an option. He either gets free treatment or slowly wastes away (possibly in agony due to not being able to afford pain medication either) and then dies. Wonderful example. so we have: B: Guy cant afford insurance, thus doesn't have it, gets sick -> problem A: Guy can't afford insurance, but has it anyway -> all great. Again, the problem is not, that he didn't have the insurance, but that he couldn't afford it. You don't remove this problem by stating that if he would have bought it anyway (or was forced to) all things are suddenly great.. But if this is the foundation of your argument... good job. Maybe before starting to discuss whether you choose A or B you should discuss about enabling him to afford it. Once you made sure that everyone could afford it. (which, as stated earlier is a different topic) you get to the other problem. The dilemma of "what if you gambled wrong". This is simply a problem of conflicting morales. You either sacrifice the right of "you can do whatever stupid or risky thing you want like skiing, traveling to North Korea or skipping on health insurance" or you sacrifice parts of the morale obligation of society to care for those who are in deep shit under any circumstances. But you can't have both at 100%. And different people have different opinions on this. But of course you can always pretend that only the other side is sacrificing rights/morales. Reminds me of a German couple. They were sailing across the world, were warned not to sail in certain areas, did it anyway. Got kidnapped by pirates, bought free by Germany, got a more severe warning to really not sail in certain areas. Guess what... They did it again, got kidnapped again, this time they were not bought free. Now they are dead. Except that you run into problems when you want to subsidize people under the B model. Lets work with the very simple situation where there is exactly 1 condition with a 1 in a million chance of getting it. That condition costs $100m to treat, or in other words, there is an average health care cost of $100 per person. In Model A, we say everybody has to be insured for $100, and if you can't pay it, there are subsidies, etc. to help yout out. Under Model B we could do the same. Except that insurance companies have figured out that the chance of getting this disease is not uniform over the population. It is more prevalent in men over 50 than among others. So the insurance companies charge men over 50 $200 premium and everybody else only $80 (assuming that men over 50 are 33% of the population). Now the average cost to treat the whole population is still $100, so that's still the maximum subsidy we are willing to give. But now poor men over 50 can no longer afford their insurance. Now of course, we could be cleverer as the government and use the same model as the insurance companies. But now we need extra bureaucrats to not only check whether people are poor, but to keep our risk models accurate. But there's more. The next year the insurance companies figure out that the risk also depends on behaviour patterns (smoking, drinking, fatty foods). So when you sign up for a new insurance they now ask you about these behaviours. If you smoke, drink, or have a BMI over 23, you now have to pay $400 for the insurance. Should the government model take that into account? In the end, you either end up with social Darwinism of the form: if you have certain behaviours (moreover, these behaviours are also correlated with poverty) and are poor, you simply do not get treatment for the disease that you are more likely to contract. Or the government has to ask all the same questions as the insurance company to ensure everybody is covered. Now of course, if you are < 50, and don't smoke, etc., model B looks fantastic: you only have to pay a $50 premium, which reflects your situation of prime health. Now if you're poor, you don't give a shit: the government pays your $50, and would have payed up to $100. But if you're not poor, you saved yourself $50 in comparison to model A! However, that comes at either (a) increased government bureaucracy in order to allocate the subsidies where they have to go or (b) poor people dying of this curable disease. Given that almost everybody in favour of model B is also in favour of cutting government jobs left, right and center, I think we will end up with outcome (b), don't you? In this example you imposed a mandated health insurance for the entire population in your exercise. Most who would prefer model B would be against any kind of mandate (an assumption on my part to be sure, but I think it holds true). As such, a portion of the healthy would rather pay nothing as they don't feel the need to have insurance, and the cost of those over 50, skyrockets beyond your numbers.
Damn, that was going to be the basis of my argument, and then I got sidetracked with people smoking! :D
So yeah, that too. Which just compounds the problem even further. Now the insurance for older men is even more expensive, simply by merit of having herpaderps not ensure themselves for the low cost of their insurance. Moreover, 1 in lets say 2million of these herpaderps will actually get sick. These herpaderps will also be dieing in the street to this entirely preventable disease.
|
On March 25 2017 03:51 Trainrunnef wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 03:46 zlefin wrote:
I wish the government had already built up a database of QALY data that could be easily used and cited for deciding how much to cover stuff. Are they rolling back the data requirements of the ACA with this bill? I haven't heard or read anything on that...
I haven't either; I'd just like to see a good QALY database made by the gov't, is there one made by the ACA?
|
On March 25 2017 03:54 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 03:51 Trainrunnef wrote:On March 25 2017 03:46 zlefin wrote:
I wish the government had already built up a database of QALY data that could be easily used and cited for deciding how much to cover stuff. Are they rolling back the data requirements of the ACA with this bill? I haven't heard or read anything on that... I haven't either; I'd just like to see a good QALY database made by the gov't, is there one made by the ACA?
I dont think so but it set the groundwork for it by making most if not all healthcare providers switch to electronic records keeping systems rather than paper systems.
EDIT: Even the small rural providers had to change, there was alot of upheaval about that when it came into effect a few years ago as an added cost to doing business by evil federal regulations.
|
With hours to go before the House is set to (finally) vote on Paul Ryan’s health-care bill, the Trump administration is putting a full-court press on recalcitrant Republicans to rally votes. Last night, the White House sent senior officials including Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, and Chief Strategist Steve Bannon to Capitol Hill to deliver an ultimatum to wavering House members: Pass the bill or Trump is moving on to other priorities. The message was intended to put blame for a failed vote on Congress.
The failure to repeal and replace Obamacare would be a stinging defeat for Trump. But it would be an even bigger defeat for Paul Ryan, who has all but staked his Speakership on passing this bill. And in the hall of mirrors that is Washington, the big winner to emerge out of the health-care debacle could be Steve Bannon. That’s because Bannon has been waging war against Ryan for years. For Bannon, Ryan is the embodiment of the “globalist-corporatist” Republican elite. A failed bill would be Bannon’s best chance yet to topple Ryan and advance his nationalist-populist economic agenda.
Publicly, Bannon has been working to help the bill pass. But privately he’s talked it down in recent days. According to a source close to the White House, Bannon said that he’s unhappy with the Ryan bill because it “doesn’t drive down costs” and was “written by the insurance industry.” While the bill strips away many of Obamacare’s provisions, it does not go as far as Bannon would wish to “deconstruct the administrative state” in the realm of health care. Furthermore, Bannon has been distancing himself from the bill to insulate himself from political fallout of it failing. He’s told people that Trump economic adviser Gary Cohn — a West Wing rival — has run point on it. (Bannon did not respond to a request for comment.)
Whether or not the bill passes, Ryan has been weakened, the pro-Breitbart Freedom Caucus has been emboldened. It’s hard to see how the Republican health-care civil war hasn’t been a boon for Bannon.
Source.
|
On March 25 2017 04:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +With hours to go before the House is set to (finally) vote on Paul Ryan’s health-care bill, the Trump administration is putting a full-court press on recalcitrant Republicans to rally votes. Last night, the White House sent senior officials including Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, and Chief Strategist Steve Bannon to Capitol Hill to deliver an ultimatum to wavering House members: Pass the bill or Trump is moving on to other priorities. The message was intended to put blame for a failed vote on Congress.
The failure to repeal and replace Obamacare would be a stinging defeat for Trump. But it would be an even bigger defeat for Paul Ryan, who has all but staked his Speakership on passing this bill. And in the hall of mirrors that is Washington, the big winner to emerge out of the health-care debacle could be Steve Bannon. That’s because Bannon has been waging war against Ryan for years. For Bannon, Ryan is the embodiment of the “globalist-corporatist” Republican elite. A failed bill would be Bannon’s best chance yet to topple Ryan and advance his nationalist-populist economic agenda.
Publicly, Bannon has been working to help the bill pass. But privately he’s talked it down in recent days. According to a source close to the White House, Bannon said that he’s unhappy with the Ryan bill because it “doesn’t drive down costs” and was “written by the insurance industry.” While the bill strips away many of Obamacare’s provisions, it does not go as far as Bannon would wish to “deconstruct the administrative state” in the realm of health care. Furthermore, Bannon has been distancing himself from the bill to insulate himself from political fallout of it failing. He’s told people that Trump economic adviser Gary Cohn — a West Wing rival — has run point on it. (Bannon did not respond to a request for comment.)
Whether or not the bill passes, Ryan has been weakened, the pro-Breitbart Freedom Caucus has been emboldened. It’s hard to see how the Republican health-care civil war hasn’t been a boon for Bannon. Source.
Going to be funny after all of this, to see the everyone come together on cutting taxes for the wealthy and bringing in a bunch of off shore money.
|
On March 25 2017 04:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +With hours to go before the House is set to (finally) vote on Paul Ryan’s health-care bill, the Trump administration is putting a full-court press on recalcitrant Republicans to rally votes. Last night, the White House sent senior officials including Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, and Chief Strategist Steve Bannon to Capitol Hill to deliver an ultimatum to wavering House members: Pass the bill or Trump is moving on to other priorities. The message was intended to put blame for a failed vote on Congress.
The failure to repeal and replace Obamacare would be a stinging defeat for Trump. But it would be an even bigger defeat for Paul Ryan, who has all but staked his Speakership on passing this bill. And in the hall of mirrors that is Washington, the big winner to emerge out of the health-care debacle could be Steve Bannon. That’s because Bannon has been waging war against Ryan for years. For Bannon, Ryan is the embodiment of the “globalist-corporatist” Republican elite. A failed bill would be Bannon’s best chance yet to topple Ryan and advance his nationalist-populist economic agenda.
Publicly, Bannon has been working to help the bill pass. But privately he’s talked it down in recent days. According to a source close to the White House, Bannon said that he’s unhappy with the Ryan bill because it “doesn’t drive down costs” and was “written by the insurance industry.” While the bill strips away many of Obamacare’s provisions, it does not go as far as Bannon would wish to “deconstruct the administrative state” in the realm of health care. Furthermore, Bannon has been distancing himself from the bill to insulate himself from political fallout of it failing. He’s told people that Trump economic adviser Gary Cohn — a West Wing rival — has run point on it. (Bannon did not respond to a request for comment.)
Whether or not the bill passes, Ryan has been weakened, the pro-Breitbart Freedom Caucus has been emboldened. It’s hard to see how the Republican health-care civil war hasn’t been a boon for Bannon. Source.
My favorite part about this whole thing is the battle of the names. You can tell whose side each person and newspaper is on by whether they call it RyanCare, TrumpCare or AHA. Everyone has known from the beginning that it was doomed and so they tried to use the name to assign blame.
|
On March 25 2017 04:21 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +With hours to go before the House is set to (finally) vote on Paul Ryan’s health-care bill, the Trump administration is putting a full-court press on recalcitrant Republicans to rally votes. Last night, the White House sent senior officials including Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, and Chief Strategist Steve Bannon to Capitol Hill to deliver an ultimatum to wavering House members: Pass the bill or Trump is moving on to other priorities. The message was intended to put blame for a failed vote on Congress.
The failure to repeal and replace Obamacare would be a stinging defeat for Trump. But it would be an even bigger defeat for Paul Ryan, who has all but staked his Speakership on passing this bill. And in the hall of mirrors that is Washington, the big winner to emerge out of the health-care debacle could be Steve Bannon. That’s because Bannon has been waging war against Ryan for years. For Bannon, Ryan is the embodiment of the “globalist-corporatist” Republican elite. A failed bill would be Bannon’s best chance yet to topple Ryan and advance his nationalist-populist economic agenda.
Publicly, Bannon has been working to help the bill pass. But privately he’s talked it down in recent days. According to a source close to the White House, Bannon said that he’s unhappy with the Ryan bill because it “doesn’t drive down costs” and was “written by the insurance industry.” While the bill strips away many of Obamacare’s provisions, it does not go as far as Bannon would wish to “deconstruct the administrative state” in the realm of health care. Furthermore, Bannon has been distancing himself from the bill to insulate himself from political fallout of it failing. He’s told people that Trump economic adviser Gary Cohn — a West Wing rival — has run point on it. (Bannon did not respond to a request for comment.)
Whether or not the bill passes, Ryan has been weakened, the pro-Breitbart Freedom Caucus has been emboldened. It’s hard to see how the Republican health-care civil war hasn’t been a boon for Bannon. Source.
Congress is not to blame for failing a vote on a shit bill. The people writing the bill are to blame for it being shit and dead before it left the committee room.
Also if Ryan stakes his speakership on this he's an idiot because everyone who looked at it declared it dead the moment they saw it.
And newsflash, healthcare is complicated, and so is its financing. To remove to 'administrative state' is to remove modern healthcare. But considering Bannon's anti-government stance, that's probably what his aim actually is.
|
|
|
Just saw the House adjourn a few minutes ago, wasn't sure if that's normal procedure before or a vote or if they're pulping it?
|
If Trump gets this to pass then he's stupider than I thought (and the Republicans more unprincipled than I thought). The only smart play is letting it die and passing the blame.
Edit: I misread pulled it as pulled it off. Seems like he pulled the bill from a vote? Either way my point stands.
|
On March 25 2017 04:34 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2017 04:21 xDaunt wrote:With hours to go before the House is set to (finally) vote on Paul Ryan’s health-care bill, the Trump administration is putting a full-court press on recalcitrant Republicans to rally votes. Last night, the White House sent senior officials including Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, and Chief Strategist Steve Bannon to Capitol Hill to deliver an ultimatum to wavering House members: Pass the bill or Trump is moving on to other priorities. The message was intended to put blame for a failed vote on Congress.
The failure to repeal and replace Obamacare would be a stinging defeat for Trump. But it would be an even bigger defeat for Paul Ryan, who has all but staked his Speakership on passing this bill. And in the hall of mirrors that is Washington, the big winner to emerge out of the health-care debacle could be Steve Bannon. That’s because Bannon has been waging war against Ryan for years. For Bannon, Ryan is the embodiment of the “globalist-corporatist” Republican elite. A failed bill would be Bannon’s best chance yet to topple Ryan and advance his nationalist-populist economic agenda.
Publicly, Bannon has been working to help the bill pass. But privately he’s talked it down in recent days. According to a source close to the White House, Bannon said that he’s unhappy with the Ryan bill because it “doesn’t drive down costs” and was “written by the insurance industry.” While the bill strips away many of Obamacare’s provisions, it does not go as far as Bannon would wish to “deconstruct the administrative state” in the realm of health care. Furthermore, Bannon has been distancing himself from the bill to insulate himself from political fallout of it failing. He’s told people that Trump economic adviser Gary Cohn — a West Wing rival — has run point on it. (Bannon did not respond to a request for comment.)
Whether or not the bill passes, Ryan has been weakened, the pro-Breitbart Freedom Caucus has been emboldened. It’s hard to see how the Republican health-care civil war hasn’t been a boon for Bannon. Source. Congress is not to blame for failing a vote on a shit bill. The people writing the bill are to blame for it being shit and dead before it left the committee room. Also if Ryan stakes his speakership on this he's an idiot because everyone who looked at it declared it dead the moment they saw it. And newsflash, healthcare is complicated, and so is its financing. To remove to 'administrative state' is to remove modern healthcare. But considering Bannon's anti-government stance, that's probably what his aim actually is.
Like I've said before, the AHCA is a good example of why the conservative movement is rotten. It also makes it more likely that Paul Ryan is actually a dunce. And Trump really shouldn't have gotten behind this bill. It was DOA when it was first unveiled a month ago. Regardless, the GOP leadership on Capitol Hill is going to bear the brunt of most of the fallout from this.
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/house-leaders-prepare-to-vote-friday-on-health-care-reform/2017/03/24/736f1cd6-1081-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html?utm_term=.eff453d3c559
“We just pulled it,” President Trump told the Washington Post in a telephone interview.
The decision came a day after Trump delivered an ultimatum to lawmakers — and represented multiple failures for the new president and House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.).
The decision means the Affordable Care Act remains in place, at least for now, and a major GOP campaign promise goes unfulfilled. It also casts doubt on the GOP’s ability to govern and to advance other high-stakes agenda items, including tax reform and infrastructure spending. Ryan is still without a signature achievement as speaker — and the defeat undermines Trump’s image as a skilled dealmaker willing to strike compromises to push his agenda forward.
“I don’t blame Paul,” Trump said, referring to Ryan.
|
meanwhile you know he's holding Ryan personally responsible.
|
On March 25 2017 04:50 brian wrote:
meanwhile you know he's holding Ryan personally responsible.
Goes without saying. Because obviously he's a master deal maker.
The sad part is, yeah. His trumpets will actually go with this rather than pointing out that there really isn't A: willingness or B: capability to "make a deal".
Trump: here's my shot at replacing the ACA.
Everyone: well that's superbad. It's in fact SO bad that we can't guarantee that republicans will vote for it.
Trump: well okay, fuck you then, i don't care anymore.
Deal making 101.
|
What an epic failure if Republicans don't repeal Obamacare. Anyone with an R next to their name suffers for that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
