|
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 June 23 2017 07:01 Buckyman wrote:
The core problem with the ACA environment is that it relies on health insurance acting like a market while tying its hands so that it can't act like a market. A secondary problem is that the ACA papers over the resulting market failure with subsides as the carrot and the individual and corporate mandates as the stick.
Total cost of providing health care? Only directly addressed by stuff like the medical device tax.
Total cost of providing insurance? "Keep shoveling subsidies at it until the price stops going up."
When will the price stop going up? When some other demand drop compensates for the inflating subsidies. This is necessarily people like me - people who don't get subsidies for various reasons and can't afford the insurance.
Net result - slightly better total health care, the subsidized gain some, the unsubsidized lose slightly less, but at what cost?
I'd be happy to work on health care costs overall; sadly political will is lacking; and of course most people aren't competent enough to even tell what would represent improvement. iirc aca does to a little bit of work on overall health costs, but that is indeed not it's main focus. as to the net cost for net result on aca, surely they have some data out there on what the net costs are? the bigger question is whether you deem it socially worthwhile or not.
as to costs though, the answer is to give less care to people; ergo lower costs.
but most people want health care, and to not die. no real good answer to that in a democracy.
though there's probably some tweaks that could be made.
|
On June 23 2017 07:55 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 07:06 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 06:52 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 06:18 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 06:05 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 05:56 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 05:52 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Careful with "we", he might think you British.
It goes without saying that Republicans are pretty scummy. But it's about time that Democrats realize that just because Republicans are terrible, it doesn't mean they are entitled to win jack shit if they are only marginally better. One of few firm positions from Democrats is in opposition to that realization. It's pretty universal among democrats that anyone who doesn't support marginally less destructive candidates is an idiot purist. While Trump has been bad and wants to be much worse, there's an argument that Hillary getting more of her less bad agenda could have been more destructive than Trump getting little of his very destructive agenda. On June 23 2017 05:54 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Democrats wrote a bill that let Republicans be democratically elected and write their own bills?
How dare Democrats not outlaw Republican lawmakers. lol no, they could have had a public option. If my memory serves me correctly, a few shitbag democrats were against the public option and said they'd vote against it. You are correct. Specifically Joe Lieberman, independent after a left leaning democrat challenged him in 2006, killed it. It was his sole mission in the senate to kill the public option. We can't forget Ben Nelson
who went on to lead the National Association of Insurance CommissionersWhich is all the more important in light of Kwark highlighting that one fundamental difference between what we could have had (if it weren't for Democrats) and what we do have is the enshrining of private for profit insurers. Which when paired with limiting all reform within such framework ensures that the Democrats want prefer uninsured people and private insurers over no uninsured people and a dramatically smaller private market. You are right, the majority of Americans did not want single payer in 2008-2010 and elected people who prevented it from being put in place. It was always doomed to fail because of the two senators cited above. As Democrats are made up of Americans, it is the democrats fault too. To bad we can't just delete CT from the map and remove Ben Nelson from history. But I love your mystical reality where there were other votes to be found to overcome a filibuster. You're stubborn on this, but it's fun. They were in opposition to general public opinion, but they were in line with the insurance industry. Hard to say what the polls were specifically in Nelson's state, but it's not like it mattered, he didn't plan on getting elected by them anyway. Seem to be trying really hard to cape for some Democrats that couldn't care less about you. I'm having a hard time even seeing what point you are making. What are you saying could have happened but didn't happen? Who are you saying chose to make that happen? Democrats killed the public option that would have not made vulnerable the people who never got covered because Republicans didn't expand medicaid, also it wouldn't have Democrats currently fighting to hopefully leave 20,000,000+ people uninsured as a win against what Republicans are offering. Despite that, Democrats lost after hedging, and are still looking at losing in 18 despite hedging even further. They didn't have the votes for the public option so they went for what they could pass because any improvement beats the shit system that existed prior to the ACA. They tried to stop states from being able to opt out of the expansion but the supreme court stopped them (I assume the person in this thread stating so was telling the truth, please provide evidence otherwise if you disagree). Please do provide a different option that was available at the time that would have improved the current situation.
You seem to not understand what I'm saying. I'm saying the Democratic party couldn't get the votes among themselves, that people are suggesting were for dubious "political support reasons" then lost anyway and chose to implement a plan that intended to leave 20,000,000+ uninsured. That was on them, and so is losing to the people who managed to make it worse.
Not sure why folks have a problem with that.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 23 2017 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 07:55 Gorsameth wrote:On June 23 2017 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 07:06 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 06:52 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 06:18 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 06:05 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 05:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
One of few firm positions from Democrats is in opposition to that realization. It's pretty universal among democrats that anyone who doesn't support marginally less destructive candidates is an idiot purist. While Trump has been bad and wants to be much worse, there's an argument that Hillary getting more of her less bad agenda could have been more destructive than Trump getting little of his very destructive agenda.
[quote]
lol no, they could have had a public option. If my memory serves me correctly, a few shitbag democrats were against the public option and said they'd vote against it. You are correct. Specifically Joe Lieberman, independent after a left leaning democrat challenged him in 2006, killed it. It was his sole mission in the senate to kill the public option. We can't forget Ben Nelson
who went on to lead the National Association of Insurance CommissionersWhich is all the more important in light of Kwark highlighting that one fundamental difference between what we could have had (if it weren't for Democrats) and what we do have is the enshrining of private for profit insurers. Which when paired with limiting all reform within such framework ensures that the Democrats want prefer uninsured people and private insurers over no uninsured people and a dramatically smaller private market. You are right, the majority of Americans did not want single payer in 2008-2010 and elected people who prevented it from being put in place. It was always doomed to fail because of the two senators cited above. As Democrats are made up of Americans, it is the democrats fault too. To bad we can't just delete CT from the map and remove Ben Nelson from history. But I love your mystical reality where there were other votes to be found to overcome a filibuster. You're stubborn on this, but it's fun. They were in opposition to general public opinion, but they were in line with the insurance industry. Hard to say what the polls were specifically in Nelson's state, but it's not like it mattered, he didn't plan on getting elected by them anyway. Seem to be trying really hard to cape for some Democrats that couldn't care less about you. I'm having a hard time even seeing what point you are making. What are you saying could have happened but didn't happen? Who are you saying chose to make that happen? Democrats killed the public option that would have not made vulnerable the people who never got covered because Republicans didn't expand medicaid, also it wouldn't have Democrats currently fighting to hopefully leave 20,000,000+ people uninsured as a win against what Republicans are offering. Despite that, Democrats lost after hedging, and are still looking at losing in 18 despite hedging even further. They didn't have the votes for the public option so they went for what they could pass because any improvement beats the shit system that existed prior to the ACA. They tried to stop states from being able to opt out of the expansion but the supreme court stopped them (I assume the person in this thread stating so was telling the truth, please provide evidence otherwise if you disagree). Please do provide a different option that was available at the time that would have improved the current situation. You seem to not understand what I'm saying. I'm saying the Democratic party couldn't get the votes among themselves, that people are suggesting were for dubious "political support reasons" then lost anyway and chose to implement a plan that intended to leave 20,000,000+ uninsured. That was on them, and so is losing to the people who managed to make it worse. Not sure why folks have a problem with that.
The underlying problem is that you are criticizing the people who will deliver us from Trump. Never mind that they dug their own Trumpian grave by being terrible.
It's something of a "but it's Trump/Republicans so how can you criticize them" mentality. The same contortions were used to justify Clinton.
|
On June 23 2017 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 07:55 Gorsameth wrote:On June 23 2017 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 07:06 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 06:52 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 06:18 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 06:05 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 05:56 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
One of few firm positions from Democrats is in opposition to that realization. It's pretty universal among democrats that anyone who doesn't support marginally less destructive candidates is an idiot purist. While Trump has been bad and wants to be much worse, there's an argument that Hillary getting more of her less bad agenda could have been more destructive than Trump getting little of his very destructive agenda.
[quote]
lol no, they could have had a public option. If my memory serves me correctly, a few shitbag democrats were against the public option and said they'd vote against it. You are correct. Specifically Joe Lieberman, independent after a left leaning democrat challenged him in 2006, killed it. It was his sole mission in the senate to kill the public option. We can't forget Ben Nelson
who went on to lead the National Association of Insurance CommissionersWhich is all the more important in light of Kwark highlighting that one fundamental difference between what we could have had (if it weren't for Democrats) and what we do have is the enshrining of private for profit insurers. Which when paired with limiting all reform within such framework ensures that the Democrats want prefer uninsured people and private insurers over no uninsured people and a dramatically smaller private market. You are right, the majority of Americans did not want single payer in 2008-2010 and elected people who prevented it from being put in place. It was always doomed to fail because of the two senators cited above. As Democrats are made up of Americans, it is the democrats fault too. To bad we can't just delete CT from the map and remove Ben Nelson from history. But I love your mystical reality where there were other votes to be found to overcome a filibuster. You're stubborn on this, but it's fun. They were in opposition to general public opinion, but they were in line with the insurance industry. Hard to say what the polls were specifically in Nelson's state, but it's not like it mattered, he didn't plan on getting elected by them anyway. Seem to be trying really hard to cape for some Democrats that couldn't care less about you. I'm having a hard time even seeing what point you are making. What are you saying could have happened but didn't happen? Who are you saying chose to make that happen? Democrats killed the public option that would have not made vulnerable the people who never got covered because Republicans didn't expand medicaid, also it wouldn't have Democrats currently fighting to hopefully leave 20,000,000+ people uninsured as a win against what Republicans are offering. Despite that, Democrats lost after hedging, and are still looking at losing in 18 despite hedging even further. They didn't have the votes for the public option so they went for what they could pass because any improvement beats the shit system that existed prior to the ACA. They tried to stop states from being able to opt out of the expansion but the supreme court stopped them (I assume the person in this thread stating so was telling the truth, please provide evidence otherwise if you disagree). Please do provide a different option that was available at the time that would have improved the current situation. You seem to not understand what I'm saying. I'm saying the Democratic party couldn't get the votes among themselves, that people are suggesting were for dubious "political support reasons" then lost anyway and chose to implement a plan that intended to leave 20,000,000+ uninsured. That was on them, and so is losing to the people who managed to make it worse. Not sure why folks have a problem with that.
Because I dont get what your saying...
Was it better before the ACA? No, it wasn't
It is better with the ACA? Yes, but its far from perfect and still has a lot of flaws
Could the Democrats have gotten a better system? No, they didn't have the votes among themselves and no Republican would ever help.
Your blaming then for not implementing a better system for which they did not have the votes?
In my eyes some improvement beats no improvement.
|
On June 23 2017 08:27 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 07:55 Gorsameth wrote:On June 23 2017 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 07:06 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 06:52 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 06:18 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 06:05 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
If my memory serves me correctly, a few shitbag democrats were against the public option and said they'd vote against it. You are correct. Specifically Joe Lieberman, independent after a left leaning democrat challenged him in 2006, killed it. It was his sole mission in the senate to kill the public option. We can't forget Ben Nelson
who went on to lead the National Association of Insurance CommissionersWhich is all the more important in light of Kwark highlighting that one fundamental difference between what we could have had (if it weren't for Democrats) and what we do have is the enshrining of private for profit insurers. Which when paired with limiting all reform within such framework ensures that the Democrats want prefer uninsured people and private insurers over no uninsured people and a dramatically smaller private market. You are right, the majority of Americans did not want single payer in 2008-2010 and elected people who prevented it from being put in place. It was always doomed to fail because of the two senators cited above. As Democrats are made up of Americans, it is the democrats fault too. To bad we can't just delete CT from the map and remove Ben Nelson from history. But I love your mystical reality where there were other votes to be found to overcome a filibuster. You're stubborn on this, but it's fun. They were in opposition to general public opinion, but they were in line with the insurance industry. Hard to say what the polls were specifically in Nelson's state, but it's not like it mattered, he didn't plan on getting elected by them anyway. Seem to be trying really hard to cape for some Democrats that couldn't care less about you. I'm having a hard time even seeing what point you are making. What are you saying could have happened but didn't happen? Who are you saying chose to make that happen? Democrats killed the public option that would have not made vulnerable the people who never got covered because Republicans didn't expand medicaid, also it wouldn't have Democrats currently fighting to hopefully leave 20,000,000+ people uninsured as a win against what Republicans are offering. Despite that, Democrats lost after hedging, and are still looking at losing in 18 despite hedging even further. They didn't have the votes for the public option so they went for what they could pass because any improvement beats the shit system that existed prior to the ACA. They tried to stop states from being able to opt out of the expansion but the supreme court stopped them (I assume the person in this thread stating so was telling the truth, please provide evidence otherwise if you disagree). Please do provide a different option that was available at the time that would have improved the current situation. You seem to not understand what I'm saying. I'm saying the Democratic party couldn't get the votes among themselves, that people are suggesting were for dubious "political support reasons" then lost anyway and chose to implement a plan that intended to leave 20,000,000+ uninsured. That was on them, and so is losing to the people who managed to make it worse. Not sure why folks have a problem with that. Because I dont get what your saying... Was it better before the ACA? No, it wasn't It is better with the ACA? Yes, but its far from perfect and still has a lot of flaws Could the Democrats have gotten a better system? No, they didn't have the votes among themselves and no Republican would ever help. Your blaming then for not implementing a better system for which they did not have the votes? In my eyes some improvement beats no improvement.
You're not blaming them for refusing to support a better bill is what I don't understand.
|
On June 23 2017 08:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 08:27 Gorsameth wrote:On June 23 2017 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 07:55 Gorsameth wrote:On June 23 2017 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 07:06 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 06:52 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 06:18 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
You are correct. Specifically Joe Lieberman, independent after a left leaning democrat challenged him in 2006, killed it. It was his sole mission in the senate to kill the public option. We can't forget Ben Nelson
who went on to lead the National Association of Insurance CommissionersWhich is all the more important in light of Kwark highlighting that one fundamental difference between what we could have had (if it weren't for Democrats) and what we do have is the enshrining of private for profit insurers. Which when paired with limiting all reform within such framework ensures that the Democrats want prefer uninsured people and private insurers over no uninsured people and a dramatically smaller private market. You are right, the majority of Americans did not want single payer in 2008-2010 and elected people who prevented it from being put in place. It was always doomed to fail because of the two senators cited above. As Democrats are made up of Americans, it is the democrats fault too. To bad we can't just delete CT from the map and remove Ben Nelson from history. But I love your mystical reality where there were other votes to be found to overcome a filibuster. You're stubborn on this, but it's fun. They were in opposition to general public opinion, but they were in line with the insurance industry. Hard to say what the polls were specifically in Nelson's state, but it's not like it mattered, he didn't plan on getting elected by them anyway. Seem to be trying really hard to cape for some Democrats that couldn't care less about you. I'm having a hard time even seeing what point you are making. What are you saying could have happened but didn't happen? Who are you saying chose to make that happen? Democrats killed the public option that would have not made vulnerable the people who never got covered because Republicans didn't expand medicaid, also it wouldn't have Democrats currently fighting to hopefully leave 20,000,000+ people uninsured as a win against what Republicans are offering. Despite that, Democrats lost after hedging, and are still looking at losing in 18 despite hedging even further. They didn't have the votes for the public option so they went for what they could pass because any improvement beats the shit system that existed prior to the ACA. They tried to stop states from being able to opt out of the expansion but the supreme court stopped them (I assume the person in this thread stating so was telling the truth, please provide evidence otherwise if you disagree). Please do provide a different option that was available at the time that would have improved the current situation. You seem to not understand what I'm saying. I'm saying the Democratic party couldn't get the votes among themselves, that people are suggesting were for dubious "political support reasons" then lost anyway and chose to implement a plan that intended to leave 20,000,000+ uninsured. That was on them, and so is losing to the people who managed to make it worse. Not sure why folks have a problem with that. Because I dont get what your saying... Was it better before the ACA? No, it wasn't It is better with the ACA? Yes, but its far from perfect and still has a lot of flaws Could the Democrats have gotten a better system? No, they didn't have the votes among themselves and no Republican would ever help. Your blaming then for not implementing a better system for which they did not have the votes? In my eyes some improvement beats no improvement. You're not blaming them for refusing to support a better bill is what I don't understand.
So they should have supported a better bill that would have have died in the senate? Because a single payer bill would have died in the senate.
|
On June 23 2017 08:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 08:27 Gorsameth wrote:On June 23 2017 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 07:55 Gorsameth wrote:On June 23 2017 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 07:06 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 06:52 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 06:18 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
You are correct. Specifically Joe Lieberman, independent after a left leaning democrat challenged him in 2006, killed it. It was his sole mission in the senate to kill the public option. We can't forget Ben Nelson
who went on to lead the National Association of Insurance CommissionersWhich is all the more important in light of Kwark highlighting that one fundamental difference between what we could have had (if it weren't for Democrats) and what we do have is the enshrining of private for profit insurers. Which when paired with limiting all reform within such framework ensures that the Democrats want prefer uninsured people and private insurers over no uninsured people and a dramatically smaller private market. You are right, the majority of Americans did not want single payer in 2008-2010 and elected people who prevented it from being put in place. It was always doomed to fail because of the two senators cited above. As Democrats are made up of Americans, it is the democrats fault too. To bad we can't just delete CT from the map and remove Ben Nelson from history. But I love your mystical reality where there were other votes to be found to overcome a filibuster. You're stubborn on this, but it's fun. They were in opposition to general public opinion, but they were in line with the insurance industry. Hard to say what the polls were specifically in Nelson's state, but it's not like it mattered, he didn't plan on getting elected by them anyway. Seem to be trying really hard to cape for some Democrats that couldn't care less about you. I'm having a hard time even seeing what point you are making. What are you saying could have happened but didn't happen? Who are you saying chose to make that happen? Democrats killed the public option that would have not made vulnerable the people who never got covered because Republicans didn't expand medicaid, also it wouldn't have Democrats currently fighting to hopefully leave 20,000,000+ people uninsured as a win against what Republicans are offering. Despite that, Democrats lost after hedging, and are still looking at losing in 18 despite hedging even further. They didn't have the votes for the public option so they went for what they could pass because any improvement beats the shit system that existed prior to the ACA. They tried to stop states from being able to opt out of the expansion but the supreme court stopped them (I assume the person in this thread stating so was telling the truth, please provide evidence otherwise if you disagree). Please do provide a different option that was available at the time that would have improved the current situation. You seem to not understand what I'm saying. I'm saying the Democratic party couldn't get the votes among themselves, that people are suggesting were for dubious "political support reasons" then lost anyway and chose to implement a plan that intended to leave 20,000,000+ uninsured. That was on them, and so is losing to the people who managed to make it worse. Not sure why folks have a problem with that. Because I dont get what your saying... Was it better before the ACA? No, it wasn't It is better with the ACA? Yes, but its far from perfect and still has a lot of flaws Could the Democrats have gotten a better system? No, they didn't have the votes among themselves and no Republican would ever help. Your blaming then for not implementing a better system for which they did not have the votes? In my eyes some improvement beats no improvement. You're not blaming them for refusing to support a better bill is what I don't understand.
I don't find it useful to place the blame solely on Democrats, for what they weren't able to get done due to unflinching Republican resistance.
|
On June 23 2017 08:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 08:27 Gorsameth wrote:On June 23 2017 08:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 07:55 Gorsameth wrote:On June 23 2017 07:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 07:06 Mohdoo wrote:On June 23 2017 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 06:52 Plansix wrote:On June 23 2017 06:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 23 2017 06:18 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
You are correct. Specifically Joe Lieberman, independent after a left leaning democrat challenged him in 2006, killed it. It was his sole mission in the senate to kill the public option. We can't forget Ben Nelson
who went on to lead the National Association of Insurance CommissionersWhich is all the more important in light of Kwark highlighting that one fundamental difference between what we could have had (if it weren't for Democrats) and what we do have is the enshrining of private for profit insurers. Which when paired with limiting all reform within such framework ensures that the Democrats want prefer uninsured people and private insurers over no uninsured people and a dramatically smaller private market. You are right, the majority of Americans did not want single payer in 2008-2010 and elected people who prevented it from being put in place. It was always doomed to fail because of the two senators cited above. As Democrats are made up of Americans, it is the democrats fault too. To bad we can't just delete CT from the map and remove Ben Nelson from history. But I love your mystical reality where there were other votes to be found to overcome a filibuster. You're stubborn on this, but it's fun. They were in opposition to general public opinion, but they were in line with the insurance industry. Hard to say what the polls were specifically in Nelson's state, but it's not like it mattered, he didn't plan on getting elected by them anyway. Seem to be trying really hard to cape for some Democrats that couldn't care less about you. I'm having a hard time even seeing what point you are making. What are you saying could have happened but didn't happen? Who are you saying chose to make that happen? Democrats killed the public option that would have not made vulnerable the people who never got covered because Republicans didn't expand medicaid, also it wouldn't have Democrats currently fighting to hopefully leave 20,000,000+ people uninsured as a win against what Republicans are offering. Despite that, Democrats lost after hedging, and are still looking at losing in 18 despite hedging even further. They didn't have the votes for the public option so they went for what they could pass because any improvement beats the shit system that existed prior to the ACA. They tried to stop states from being able to opt out of the expansion but the supreme court stopped them (I assume the person in this thread stating so was telling the truth, please provide evidence otherwise if you disagree). Please do provide a different option that was available at the time that would have improved the current situation. You seem to not understand what I'm saying. I'm saying the Democratic party couldn't get the votes among themselves, that people are suggesting were for dubious "political support reasons" then lost anyway and chose to implement a plan that intended to leave 20,000,000+ uninsured. That was on them, and so is losing to the people who managed to make it worse. Not sure why folks have a problem with that. Because I dont get what your saying... Was it better before the ACA? No, it wasn't It is better with the ACA? Yes, but its far from perfect and still has a lot of flaws Could the Democrats have gotten a better system? No, they didn't have the votes among themselves and no Republican would ever help. Your blaming then for not implementing a better system for which they did not have the votes? In my eyes some improvement beats no improvement. You're not blaming them for refusing to support a better bill is what I don't understand.
The difference is that I dont blame the many for the mistakes of the few, anymore then I absolve Republicans of this horrible healthcare bill because a few oppose it.
I do believe I saw a page or few ago that they tried to primary some of the no voters? If so you can't say they didn't try to change the numbers either.
Taking the situation as it was, not enough votes for a better bill, the question becomes do you pass what you can? or do you mothball it like LL suggested? In which case no improvement will probably happen for another long time.
I think they did what they could.
What do you think they should have done? (other then change the fabric of reality to get votes they didn't have)
|
On June 23 2017 08:00 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 07:01 Buckyman wrote:
The core problem with the ACA environment is that it relies on health insurance acting like a market while tying its hands so that it can't act like a market. A secondary problem is that the ACA papers over the resulting market failure with subsides as the carrot and the individual and corporate mandates as the stick.
Total cost of providing health care? Only directly addressed by stuff like the medical device tax.
Total cost of providing insurance? "Keep shoveling subsidies at it until the price stops going up."
When will the price stop going up? When some other demand drop compensates for the inflating subsidies. This is necessarily people like me - people who don't get subsidies for various reasons and can't afford the insurance.
Net result - slightly better total health care, the subsidized gain some, the unsubsidized lose slightly less, but at what cost? I'd be happy to work on health care costs overall; sadly political will is lacking; and of course most people aren't competent enough to even tell what would represent improvement. iirc aca does to a little bit of work on overall health costs, but that is indeed not it's main focus. as to the net cost for net result on aca, surely they have some data out there on what the net costs are? the bigger question is whether you deem it socially worthwhile or not.
as to costs though, the answer is to give less care to people; ergo lower costs.
but most people want health care, and to not die. no real good answer to that in a democracy.
though there's probably some tweaks that could be made.
This is not true. We already cap costs for most if not all procedures with medicare.
If we cap costs with Medicare for all and reign in drug prices by allowing medicare to negotiate said prices overall healthcare costs would be reduced dramatically.
|
On a non-healthcare note, I wonder how Trump going on record confirming he lied about tapes will affect the obstruction stuff. It makes the tweet after Comey's firing seem even more like witness intimidation than it used to be-since it was invented whole cloth for no reason besides intimidating him, rather than being remotely a statement of fact.
Especially since Spicer has gone on record as saying the tweets are official statements from the POTUS (and was cited as such in a court decision on the travel ban).
|
CMS has a good price book. reimbursement for some stuff actually does suck balls, so the provider choice may be limited and of lower quality as a result. but it does show the purchasing power if you account for 1/3 of the total care.
i don't think procedure prices will be significantly impacted in the next couple years, though we could see some nice regulation for drug prices and possibl medtech
|
United States42778 Posts
On June 23 2017 09:06 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On a non-healthcare note, I wonder how Trump going on record confirming he lied about tapes will affect the obstruction stuff. It makes the tweet after Comey's firing seem even more like witness intimidation than it used to be.
I don't even understand the purpose of the threat. Let's say that Trump said something to Comey he shouldn't have and doesn't want Comey to repeat. Trump therefore tries to intimidate Comey by saying that he has evidence of the thing that he said and that if Comey doesn't fully and accurately recount Trump's words then Trump will release the evidence, thus proving Comey was lying to protect Trump. That's pretty 10D chess.
|
On June 23 2017 09:06 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On a non-healthcare note, I wonder how Trump going on record confirming he lied about tapes will affect the obstruction stuff. It makes the tweet after Comey's firing seem even more like witness intimidation than it used to be-since it was invented whole cloth for no reason besides intimidating him, rather than being remotely a statement of fact.
Especially since Spicer has gone on record as saying the tweets are official statements from the POTUS (and was cited as such in a court decision on the travel ban).
He didn't actually confirm the tapes don't exist. Just that he didn't make them, and doesn't have them.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Politically, Obamacare was a failure. Its effectiveness is akin to a stopgap measure that didn't really solve the problem but was a politically expensive maneuver that eroded the Democratic majority in Congress. Had the Obama administration opted for a strategic withdrawal in favor of a later attempt, it might have had better luck.
Of course, this is hindsight speaking. I would have been far more optimistic four to six years ago. But the results leave much to be desired and the damage to Democrats in Congress will be tough to reverse.
|
On June 23 2017 08:57 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 08:00 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 07:01 Buckyman wrote:
The core problem with the ACA environment is that it relies on health insurance acting like a market while tying its hands so that it can't act like a market. A secondary problem is that the ACA papers over the resulting market failure with subsides as the carrot and the individual and corporate mandates as the stick.
Total cost of providing health care? Only directly addressed by stuff like the medical device tax.
Total cost of providing insurance? "Keep shoveling subsidies at it until the price stops going up."
When will the price stop going up? When some other demand drop compensates for the inflating subsidies. This is necessarily people like me - people who don't get subsidies for various reasons and can't afford the insurance.
Net result - slightly better total health care, the subsidized gain some, the unsubsidized lose slightly less, but at what cost? I'd be happy to work on health care costs overall; sadly political will is lacking; and of course most people aren't competent enough to even tell what would represent improvement. iirc aca does to a little bit of work on overall health costs, but that is indeed not it's main focus. as to the net cost for net result on aca, surely they have some data out there on what the net costs are? the bigger question is whether you deem it socially worthwhile or not.
as to costs though, the answer is to give less care to people; ergo lower costs.
but most people want health care, and to not die. no real good answer to that in a democracy.
though there's probably some tweaks that could be made. This is not true. We already cap costs for most if not all procedures with medicare. If we cap costs with Medicare for all and reign in drug prices by allowing medicare to negotiate said prices overall healthcare costs would be reduced dramatically.
perhaps'; but capping costs has issues as well, if the caps aren't carefully chosen they can end up ruining stuff (if you cap below what it really costs to do, which can happen all too easily). but i'm fine with implementing single payer.
it still doesn't change the complicated dynamics of the voting effects in a democracy.
I wouldn't say overall healthcare costs would be reduced dramatically, more like somewhat.
|
On June 23 2017 09:32 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 08:57 Sadist wrote:On June 23 2017 08:00 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 07:01 Buckyman wrote:
The core problem with the ACA environment is that it relies on health insurance acting like a market while tying its hands so that it can't act like a market. A secondary problem is that the ACA papers over the resulting market failure with subsides as the carrot and the individual and corporate mandates as the stick.
Total cost of providing health care? Only directly addressed by stuff like the medical device tax.
Total cost of providing insurance? "Keep shoveling subsidies at it until the price stops going up."
When will the price stop going up? When some other demand drop compensates for the inflating subsidies. This is necessarily people like me - people who don't get subsidies for various reasons and can't afford the insurance.
Net result - slightly better total health care, the subsidized gain some, the unsubsidized lose slightly less, but at what cost? I'd be happy to work on health care costs overall; sadly political will is lacking; and of course most people aren't competent enough to even tell what would represent improvement. iirc aca does to a little bit of work on overall health costs, but that is indeed not it's main focus. as to the net cost for net result on aca, surely they have some data out there on what the net costs are? the bigger question is whether you deem it socially worthwhile or not.
as to costs though, the answer is to give less care to people; ergo lower costs.
but most people want health care, and to not die. no real good answer to that in a democracy.
though there's probably some tweaks that could be made. This is not true. We already cap costs for most if not all procedures with medicare. If we cap costs with Medicare for all and reign in drug prices by allowing medicare to negotiate said prices overall healthcare costs would be reduced dramatically. perhaps'; but capping costs has issues as well, if the caps aren't carefully chosen they can end up ruining stuff (if you cap below what it really costs to do, which can happen all too easily). but i'm fine with implementing single payer. it still doesn't change the complicated dynamics of the voting effects in a democracy. I wouldn't say overall healthcare costs would be reduced dramatically, more like somewhat.
Medicare sets costs and hospitals make plenty of profit. They dont set the caps very aggressively so theres still plenty of room for people to make money It isnt like its completely arbitrary.
Also for those saying its unafordable for the US.....if i understand the tax code correctly the most a person is taxed for medicare is about $3000 if you make $200k. To put that into perspective, my employer based insurance is somewhere around $6000 not counting copays and out of pocket costs & i dont make half of 200k. People assume that if medicare tax goes up if its available to all it would be coming out of their check as it looks today. In reality you could double or triple the medicare tax and if the premiums you and your employer paid was instead paid to you and taxed for ONLY for medicare you would come out way ahead.
|
On June 23 2017 09:47 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 09:32 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 08:57 Sadist wrote:On June 23 2017 08:00 zlefin wrote:On June 23 2017 07:01 Buckyman wrote:
The core problem with the ACA environment is that it relies on health insurance acting like a market while tying its hands so that it can't act like a market. A secondary problem is that the ACA papers over the resulting market failure with subsides as the carrot and the individual and corporate mandates as the stick.
Total cost of providing health care? Only directly addressed by stuff like the medical device tax.
Total cost of providing insurance? "Keep shoveling subsidies at it until the price stops going up."
When will the price stop going up? When some other demand drop compensates for the inflating subsidies. This is necessarily people like me - people who don't get subsidies for various reasons and can't afford the insurance.
Net result - slightly better total health care, the subsidized gain some, the unsubsidized lose slightly less, but at what cost? I'd be happy to work on health care costs overall; sadly political will is lacking; and of course most people aren't competent enough to even tell what would represent improvement. iirc aca does to a little bit of work on overall health costs, but that is indeed not it's main focus. as to the net cost for net result on aca, surely they have some data out there on what the net costs are? the bigger question is whether you deem it socially worthwhile or not.
as to costs though, the answer is to give less care to people; ergo lower costs.
but most people want health care, and to not die. no real good answer to that in a democracy.
though there's probably some tweaks that could be made. This is not true. We already cap costs for most if not all procedures with medicare. If we cap costs with Medicare for all and reign in drug prices by allowing medicare to negotiate said prices overall healthcare costs would be reduced dramatically. perhaps'; but capping costs has issues as well, if the caps aren't carefully chosen they can end up ruining stuff (if you cap below what it really costs to do, which can happen all too easily). but i'm fine with implementing single payer. it still doesn't change the complicated dynamics of the voting effects in a democracy. I wouldn't say overall healthcare costs would be reduced dramatically, more like somewhat. Medicare sets costs and hospitals make plenty of profit. They dont set the caps very aggressively so theres still plenty of room for people to make money It isnt like its completely arbitrary. Also for those saying its unafordable for the US.....if i understand the tax code correctly the most a person is taxed for medicare is about $3000 if you make $200k. To put that into perspective, my employer based insurance is somewhere around $6000 not counting copays and out of pocket costs & i dont make half of 200k. People assume that if medicare tax goes up if its available to all it would be coming out of their check as it looks today. In reality you could double or triple the medicare tax and if the premiums you and your employer paid was instead paid to you and taxed for ONLY for medicare you would come out way ahead.
while I have not reviewed the numbers in detail, so I cannot say you're wrong, it seems doubtful that there's THAT much margin available in the system. I suspect there's some details you're missing somewhere, though I have not the expertise in the area to say where.
|
|
|
On June 23 2017 09:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2017 09:06 TheTenthDoc wrote:
On a non-healthcare note, I wonder how Trump going on record confirming he lied about tapes will affect the obstruction stuff. It makes the tweet after Comey's firing seem even more like witness intimidation than it used to be. I don't even understand the purpose of the threat. Let's say that Trump said something to Comey he shouldn't have and doesn't want Comey to repeat. Trump therefore tries to intimidate Comey by saying that he has evidence of the thing that he said and that if Comey doesn't fully and accurately recount Trump's words then Trump will release the evidence, thus proving Comey was lying to protect Trump. That's pretty 10D chess.
I think he was hoping to say/vaguely imply "Comey's version of things wasn't true and I have tapes to prove it" but completely failed to understand the ramifications of doing that when you don't have tapes to prove it.
Kind of like how he lied and said there was evidence of Obama's fake birth certificate, or lied and said they had a finished healthcare bill, or lied about any of a dozen other deliverables. It makes him feel strong so he does it
|
@Sadist: The Medicare payroll tax is only a fraction of total Medicare funding.
Regardless, Medicare mandates are themselves costly to comply with. A small facility that takes Medicare and Medicaid patients basically needs a full-time employee just to deal with the paperwork. Large hospitals spend more. And this extra employee's pay gets tacked onto the bills.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
