Author Topic: What comes after the ACA?  (Read 819699 times)

justchristine

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 360
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3050 on: July 01, 2017, 05:15:53 AM »
It's early and I can't sleep so naturally my brain turns on and tries to solve the problems of the world.  The question that popped in my head is why don't the Republicans punt this to the state level.  They clearly want smaller involvement from the federal level.  Why not say that at least say 95% of a states population must be covered, give them Medicaid funds to do as they would and let the states figure it out.  That would totally suck for me and probably every red state citizen but it seems that would be easier for them to pass or does that foul up the whole thing with just needing a simple majority vote.  I don't know the nuances up legislative procedure , just random thoughts at too early o'clock.

Exflyboy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5636
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Corvallis, Oregon
  • Expat Brit living in the New World..:)
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3051 on: July 01, 2017, 10:55:02 AM »
Well that is what they are trying to do with Medicaid.. I.e just give a much smaller block of money to each State for Medicaid. The problem of course is that most of the States are in a budget crisis and won't be able to afford to fund Medicaid back to its original level.

Sooo.. States would have to raise taxes.. Or not of course and let the system wither away.

So essentially you might help the Federal deficit this way but you simply move the problem to the States.

EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1167
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3052 on: July 01, 2017, 02:20:59 PM »
OMG  People will DIE!!!!

Are you seriously suggesting that you (or anyone?) supports the Republican plan to strip health insurance from millions of poor Americans in order to fund a tax break for billionaires? 

We're not talking about speed limits or alcohol prohibition here, this is literally medical care for sick people.  We're talking about taking away medical care from sick people.  Yes, some sick people will die if you take away their medical care.  No joke.

You could equally make the case that Americans are fat and need to eat less, but that doesn't mean we should end the WIC program that provides subsidized food to malnourished babies.  See the exact parallel?

Frankly I'm more than a little bit disgusted that anyone would find that kind of "joke" funny.  Americans are fat, but that doesn't mean we want babies to starve to death.  Healthcare costs too much, but that doesn't mean we want sick people to die.  You can make a logical case for why healthcare costs are too high without playing the part of super-villain caricature.  "And after I steal from these nuns, I'll burn down the orphanage too!  Muwahahahahah!"

Fear is an amazing motivator.  For example, fear of weapons of mass destruction got us to invade Iraq. I disagree with the republican plan as it does not address my biggest concern which is cost, but yelling out 10 million people will die like you did a few posts up is nothing more than propaganda.  Another comment like giving tax breaks for the rich is also great propaganda considering those were the ones who were taxed due to the ACA. It sure sounds better and more sinister compared to "reversing tax hikes on the rich." Add them together and you have yourself a super line. "Giving tax breaks to the rich so that 10 million people will die." That is some evil sinister shit right there.  Again, I do not agree with the republican plan, I'm just pointing out the psychology here.

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1816
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3053 on: July 01, 2017, 02:44:09 PM »
« Last Edit: July 01, 2017, 03:12:38 PM by EscapeVelocity2020 »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7468
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3054 on: July 01, 2017, 02:50:00 PM »
yelling out 10 million people will die like you did a few posts up is nothing more than propaganda.

I did nothing of the sort.  I said a fraction of a percent of the 22 million people who become uninsured would die from a lack of primary care, and that this fraction of a percent works out to tens of thousands of people.  I stand by that statement.

Quote
"Giving tax breaks to the rich so that 10 million people will die." That is some evil sinister shit right there. 

Here's a tip:  don't use quotation marks when you're not quoting.  Don't put words in my mouth.  Don't make shit up and then pretend that someone you disagree with said it.  That's the lowest form of dishonest, isn't it?  Lying to make it look like someone else was lying?  You should be ashamed of yourself.

We expect better from each other here.

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1217
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3055 on: July 01, 2017, 03:00:28 PM »
OMG  People will DIE!!!!

Are you seriously suggesting that you (or anyone?) supports the Republican plan to strip health insurance from millions of poor Americans in order to fund a tax break for billionaires? 

We're not talking about speed limits or alcohol prohibition here, this is literally medical care for sick people.  We're talking about taking away medical care from sick people.  Yes, some sick people will die if you take away their medical care.  No joke.

You could equally make the case that Americans are fat and need to eat less, but that doesn't mean we should end the WIC program that provides subsidized food to malnourished babies.  See the exact parallel?

Frankly I'm more than a little bit disgusted that anyone would find that kind of "joke" funny.  Americans are fat, but that doesn't mean we want babies to starve to death.  Healthcare costs too much, but that doesn't mean we want sick people to die.  You can make a logical case for why healthcare costs are too high without playing the part of super-villain caricature.  "And after I steal from these nuns, I'll burn down the orphanage too!  Muwahahahahah!"

It appears that roughly 10% of the US population supports the Republican health care plan.

This is some kind of informal survey link, so the results probably aren't very accurate:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/28/suffolk-poll-obamacare-trump-senate-health-care-plan/103249346/

This is very strange.   Up here the politicians would be running away from such unpopular legislation as fast as their legs could carry them.

EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1167
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3056 on: July 01, 2017, 03:27:31 PM »
yelling out 10 million people will die like you did a few posts up is nothing more than propaganda.

I did nothing of the sort.  I said a fraction of a percent of the 22 million people who become uninsured would die from a lack of primary care, and that this fraction of a percent works out to tens of thousands of people.  I stand by that statement.

Quote
"Giving tax breaks to the rich so that 10 million people will die." That is some evil sinister shit right there. 

Here's a tip:  don't use quotation marks when you're not quoting.  Don't put words in my mouth.  Don't make shit up and then pretend that someone you disagree with said it.  That's the lowest form of dishonest, isn't it?  Lying to make it look like someone else was lying?  You should be ashamed of yourself.

We expect better from each other here.

I did not intend to use that quote as yours and therefor did not direct hem at you.  It was an example line of what what you may see on TV.  It makes for great news, and makes for great propaganda.  Remember I don't disagree with you that the republican plan is bad.  Actually I keep reiterating it because people keep thinking I am a republican or something which is completely not true.

Also, I did not put quotes around 10 million people will die because I am not quoting anyone. It is similar though to what you posted above. Please read my entire comment the words and punctuation have a purpose.

Again, I am not denying that people losing health insurance coverage is a bad thing which will harm those people.  All I am doing is showing the psychology of these statements. I even write it directly in my post but you seam to ignore that and jump straight to the item you don't like. The psychology of your response is completely understandable. You take it as an attack on you and instantly disregard all other statements.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2017, 03:43:01 PM by EnjoyIt »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7468
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3057 on: July 01, 2017, 09:07:42 PM »
I did not intend to use that quote as yours and therefor did not direct hem at you.  It was an example line of what what you may see on TV.

It is absolutely NOT an example of what you may see on tv, it's just a strawman you made up to belittle and demean the very real human costs of this bad legislation by grotesquely exaggerating legitimate criticisms to make them seem ridiculous and stupid.  Nobody has said that except you, and you only said it because it sounds stupid and you want to associate that stupidity with people who are genuinely concerned about improving American healthcare.

Just stop it.  You're pissing me off, and you look like an ass.  If you have something to say, then please say it.  If you have a criticism to make of one side or the other, please make it.  But don't just make stupid shit up, and especially don't just make stupid shit up and then try to blame that stupid shit on people you don't agree with. 

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8769
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3058 on: July 01, 2017, 11:02:54 PM »
yelling out 10 million people will die like you did a few posts up is nothing more than propaganda.
I did nothing of the sort.  I said a fraction of a percent of the 22 million people who become uninsured would die from a lack of primary care, and that this fraction of a percent works out to tens of thousands of people.  I stand by that statement.
I did not intend to use that quote as yours and therefor did not direct hem at you.  It was an example line of what what you may see on TV.  It makes for great news, and makes for great propaganda.  Remember I don't disagree with you that the republican plan is bad.  Actually I keep reiterating it because people keep thinking I am a republican or something which is completely not true.

Also, I did not put quotes around 10 million people will die because I am not quoting anyone. It is similar though to what you posted above. Please read my entire comment the words and punctuation have a purpose.
I did not intend to use that quote as yours and therefor did not direct hem at you.  It was an example line of what what you may see on TV.
It is absolutely NOT an example of what you may see on tv, it's just a strawman you made up to belittle and demean the very real human costs of this bad legislation by grotesquely exaggerating legitimate criticisms to make them seem ridiculous and stupid.  Nobody has said that except you, and you only said it because it sounds stupid and you want to associate that stupidity with people who are genuinely concerned about improving American healthcare.

EnjoyIt did misquote sol, who never said "millions will die."  Sol's comment did mention millions but in the context of losing insurance, not dying.

Can't say whether EnjoyIt made it up, but saying "[n]obody has said [millions will die] except [EnjoyIt]" is also not correct, as the Daily Kos headline: House Republicans vote to sentence millions of Americans to death (the article itself is less histrionic) and the comments starting at ~2:20 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICWuOmbLKds attest.  OK, nobody (that I know of) said 10 million. ;)

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3059 on: July 01, 2017, 11:47:45 PM »
EnjoyIt did misquote sol, who never said "millions will die."  Sol's comment did mention millions but in the context of losing insurance, not dying.

Can't say whether EnjoyIt made it up, but saying "[n]obody has said [millions will die] except [EnjoyIt]" is also not correct, as the Daily Kos headline: House Republicans vote to sentence millions of Americans to death (the article itself is less histrionic) and the comments starting at ~2:20 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICWuOmbLKds attest.  OK, nobody (that I know of) said 10 million. ;)

I mean, Daily Kos is probably the most liberal-skewed news site that has at least some semblance of journalistic integrity, and as you say, the clickbaity headline is still FAR more misleading than the content.

Sol's point remains. If the best response to "thousands of people will literally die because of these tax cuts for the rich" is "yeah, but so and so said MILLIONS, so WTF!!!!?!?!@?!?$#?!?" you have to wonder whether maybe this bill really is beyond the pale, regardless of your political allegiance.

« Last Edit: July 01, 2017, 11:50:57 PM by Lagom »

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8769
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3060 on: July 01, 2017, 11:57:39 PM »
...you have to wonder whether maybe this bill really is beyond the pale
Fortunately it seems at least a few Republican senators won't support the version last offered, so hope remains for something more reasonable.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8765
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3061 on: July 02, 2017, 04:51:38 AM »
...you have to wonder whether maybe this bill really is beyond the pale
Fortunately it seems at least a few Republican senators won't support the version last offered, so hope remains for something more reasonable.
And here's to hoping....
I'm just nervous.  Someone on NPR said yesterday "never turn your back on a zombie bill ... and this is a zombie bill"

Bucksandreds

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3062 on: July 02, 2017, 08:08:10 AM »
I did not intend to use that quote as yours and therefor did not direct hem at you.  It was an example line of what what you may see on TV.

It is absolutely NOT an example of what you may see on tv, it's just a strawman you made up to belittle and demean the very real human costs of this bad legislation by grotesquely exaggerating legitimate criticisms to make them seem ridiculous and stupid.  Nobody has said that except you, and you only said it because it sounds stupid and you want to associate that stupidity with people who are genuinely concerned about improving American healthcare.

Just stop it.  You're pissing me off, and you look like an ass.  If you have something to say, then please say it.  If you have a criticism to make of one side or the other, please make it.  But don't just make stupid shit up, and especially don't just make stupid shit up and then try to blame that stupid shit on people you don't agree with.

I've come to expect this behavior from the lunatic fringe of the right. I've recently read a study that suggests civil discourse with these people doesn't work because the uneducated masses often are convinced  that if we're being so civil and the lunatic fringe is being so enraged that their side must have some merit due to their passion. The study suggests that the non lunatics should use many of their tactics on them and treat non sensical positions as just that.

EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1167
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3063 on: July 02, 2017, 09:55:35 AM »
I did not intend to use that quote as yours and therefor did not direct hem at you.  It was an example line of what what you may see on TV.

It is absolutely NOT an example of what you may see on tv, it's just a strawman you made up to belittle and demean the very real human costs of this bad legislation by grotesquely exaggerating legitimate criticisms to make them seem ridiculous and stupid.  Nobody has said that except you, and you only said it because it sounds stupid and you want to associate that stupidity with people who are genuinely concerned about improving American healthcare.

Just stop it.  You're pissing me off, and you look like an ass.  If you have something to say, then please say it.  If you have a criticism to make of one side or the other, please make it.  But don't just make stupid shit up, and especially don't just make stupid shit up and then try to blame that stupid shit on people you don't agree with.

Sol,
I completely agree with you, don't you understand it.  I agree with you that the republican plan is shit. How can i get that through your skull?
I also see the argument on the left to be extreme in an attempt to bring fear and fear sells. Remember the death panel argument on the right?  It is the same extreme that unfortunately removed a very positive section of the ACA.

I am talking about psychology and nothing more. The current US psychology judges our health plan by the number of people it insures irregardless of the cost or the quality of the insurance provided.  Unless the Republicans can increase the number insured or keep it the same but increase quality or decrease cost to the consumer the plan will be extremely unpopular even amongst republicans.

EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1167
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3064 on: July 02, 2017, 09:57:42 AM »
I did not intend to use that quote as yours and therefor did not direct hem at you.  It was an example line of what what you may see on TV.

It is absolutely NOT an example of what you may see on tv, it's just a strawman you made up to belittle and demean the very real human costs of this bad legislation by grotesquely exaggerating legitimate criticisms to make them seem ridiculous and stupid.  Nobody has said that except you, and you only said it because it sounds stupid and you want to associate that stupidity with people who are genuinely concerned about improving American healthcare.


Just stop it.  You're pissing me off, and you look like an ass.  If you have something to say, then please say it.  If you have a criticism to make of one side or the other, please make it.  But don't just make stupid shit up, and especially don't just make stupid shit up and then try to blame that stupid shit on people you don't agree with.

I've come to expect this behavior from the lunatic fringe of the right. I've recently read a study that suggests civil discourse with these people doesn't work because the uneducated masses often are convinced  that if we're being so civil and the lunatic fringe is being so enraged that their side must have some merit due to their passion. The study suggests that the non lunatics should use many of their tactics on them and treat non sensical positions as just that.

You strike me as one of those people who will kick the shit out of a gay hispanic for wearing a trump hat and then go home feeling good about yourself.

MDM

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8769
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3065 on: July 02, 2017, 10:05:29 AM »
I've come to expect this behavior from the lunatic fringe of the right.
Lunatic fringes exist on the edges of all parts of the political spectrum.  What type of behavior do you expect from the lunatic fringe of the left?

Alim Nassor

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 164
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3066 on: July 02, 2017, 11:50:09 AM »
I did not intend to use that quote as yours and therefor did not direct hem at you.  It was an example line of what what you may see on TV.

It is absolutely NOT an example of what you may see on tv, it's just a strawman you made up to belittle and demean the very real human costs of this bad legislation by grotesquely exaggerating legitimate criticisms to make them seem ridiculous and stupid.  Nobody has said that except you, and you only said it because it sounds stupid and you want to associate that stupidity with people who are genuinely concerned about improving American healthcare.

Just stop it.  You're pissing me off, and you look like an ass.  If you have something to say, then please say it.  If you have a criticism to make of one side or the other, please make it.  But don't just make stupid shit up, and especially don't just make stupid shit up and then try to blame that stupid shit on people you don't agree with.

I've come to expect this behavior from the lunatic fringe of the right. I've recently read a study that suggests civil discourse with these people doesn't work because the uneducated masses often are convinced  that if we're being so civil and the lunatic fringe is being so enraged that their side must have some merit due to their passion. The study suggests that the non lunatics should use many of their tactics on them and treat non sensical positions as just that.

The only uncivil lunatics in this thread are lefties.

Rosy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1841
  • Location: Florida
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3067 on: July 02, 2017, 12:46:13 PM »
OMG  People will DIE!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko

Apparently Martin Shkreli is posting in our forum, https://youtu.be/e_V7N1oAu00?t=1m17s

I did not intend to use that quote as yours and therefor did not direct hem at you.  It was an example line of what what you may see on TV.

It is absolutely NOT an example of what you may see on tv, it's just a strawman you made up to belittle and demean the very real human costs of this bad legislation by grotesquely exaggerating legitimate criticisms to make them seem ridiculous and stupid.  Nobody has said that except you, and you only said it because it sounds stupid and you want to associate that stupidity with people who are genuinely concerned about improving American healthcare.

Just stop it.  You're pissing me off, and you look like an ass.  If you have something to say, then please say it.  If you have a criticism to make of one side or the other, please make it.  But don't just make stupid shit up, and especially don't just make stupid shit up and then try to blame that stupid shit on people you don't agree with.

I've come to expect this behavior from the lunatic fringe of the right. I've recently read a study that suggests civil discourse with these people doesn't work because the uneducated masses often are convinced  that if we're being so civil and the lunatic fringe is being so enraged that their side must have some merit due to their passion. The study suggests that the non lunatics should use many of their tactics on them and treat non sensical positions as just that.

The only uncivil lunatics in this thread are lefties.


Stop it Alim - if you have nothing but rabble rousing remarks to contribute. Stop derailing this thread and stop trying to bring it down to your level of communication skills.

Alim Nassor

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 164
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3068 on: July 02, 2017, 01:40:21 PM »
OMG  People will DIE!!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXWhbUUE4ko

Apparently Martin Shkreli is posting in our forum, https://youtu.be/e_V7N1oAu00?t=1m17s

I did not intend to use that quote as yours and therefor did not direct hem at you.  It was an example line of what what you may see on TV.

It is absolutely NOT an example of what you may see on tv, it's just a strawman you made up to belittle and demean the very real human costs of this bad legislation by grotesquely exaggerating legitimate criticisms to make them seem ridiculous and stupid.  Nobody has said that except you, and you only said it because it sounds stupid and you want to associate that stupidity with people who are genuinely concerned about improving American healthcare.

Just stop it.  You're pissing me off, and you look like an ass.  If you have something to say, then please say it.  If you have a criticism to make of one side or the other, please make it.  But don't just make stupid shit up, and especially don't just make stupid shit up and then try to blame that stupid shit on people you don't agree with.

I've come to expect this behavior from the lunatic fringe of the right. I've recently read a study that suggests civil discourse with these people doesn't work because the uneducated masses often are convinced  that if we're being so civil and the lunatic fringe is being so enraged that their side must have some merit due to their passion. The study suggests that the non lunatics should use many of their tactics on them and treat non sensical positions as just that.

The only uncivil lunatics in this thread are lefties.


Stop it Alim - if you have nothing but rabble rousing remarks to contribute. Stop derailing this thread and stop trying to bring it down to your level of communication skills.w

Was my comment untrue?  No, it wasn't.   And your response,  as has been usual in this thread from the left was nothing but an ad hominem attack.

[MOD NOTE: Enough of this.  Forum Rule #1]
« Last Edit: July 02, 2017, 08:10:28 PM by FrugalToque »

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3726
  • Location: Avalon
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3069 on: July 02, 2017, 03:39:25 PM »

Was my comment untrue?  No, it wasn't.   And your response,  as has been usual in this thread from the left was nothing but an ad hominem attack.
Describing people as "uncivil lunatics", as you did, is definitely an ad hominem attack, and detracts from what has been a difficult but essentially constructive discussion.

EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1167
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3070 on: July 02, 2017, 04:17:33 PM »

I find that insults spew when cognitive dissonance sets in. Psychological turbulence sets in when someone is given an argument that they are unable to rationalize with their own view of the world. The mind has to either admit that it has rationalized incorrectly, change the subject, or lash out with insults to protect itself. It happens on the right and the left.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1526
  • Location: MA
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3071 on: July 02, 2017, 04:30:47 PM »
Nah, sometimes I just insult people because I am angry and tired.  It’s exhausting having to muddlethrough the inaccurate and petty bullshit that people post on a daily basis, and everyone has a limit.  I keep hearing the “cognitive dissonance” arguement by people who really have no business making that judgment (Scott Adams comes to mind).  Seriously. It is pretty much impossible to know if that is what someone is experiencing unless you are in their head.  But if it makes you feel superior, go for it. 

mm1970

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5970
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3072 on: July 02, 2017, 04:56:42 PM »

Was my comment untrue?  No, it wasn't.   And your response,  as has been usual in this thread from the left was nothing but an ad hominem attack.
Describing people as "uncivil lunatics", as you did, is definitely an ad hominem attack, and detracts from what has been a difficult but essentially constructive discussion.
I have found here, and on local message boards, that people tend to resort to flat out insults "you're stupid" or "you're crazy" when they are incapable of discussing issues rationally.

For most subjects, there's a middle ground, no black/white and no right/ wrong.  But people on BOTH sides often have difficulty navigating this.  Because it's complicated.  And complicated is hard.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1803
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3073 on: July 04, 2017, 08:31:30 PM »

BTW, I just received a letter from my health insurance provider. it is the same letter I receive every year since the ACA.  They will not be providing my insurance and I will need to find an alternative for 2018.  Yeah....I wonder how much shittier my options will be next year.  The thing is, I would accept it, if we were doing something to make healthcare more affordable instead of this bullshit.


Any surprise that insurance companies keeping bowing out when the Republicans in both Congress and the White House will do everything they can to destabilize the Federal Marketplace or State exchanges (so that insurance companies leave these)?

We had Marco Rubio spearhead the effort to derail the risk corridors for the insurance companies, Trump has left it unclear whether he would continue to support the cost-sharing subsidies, Republican state governments in states like Texas refused Medicaid expansion which strains the Federal Marketplace exchanges, and now this:

Congress Moves to Stop I.R.S. From Enforcing Health Law Mandate
https://nyti.ms/2tGknIZ

If you like back to the middle of page 56 on this thread, you'll see the graphic of the three legged stool that's required to keep the ACA marketplaces stable. One of those legs requires a mandate to get insurance or face a penalty (the penalty is too lenient).

« Last Edit: July 04, 2017, 08:33:24 PM by DavidAnnArbor »

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • Age: 35
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3074 on: July 05, 2017, 03:31:30 PM »

index

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 293
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3075 on: July 05, 2017, 09:34:05 PM »
What percentage of income over 250k is worth giving so citizens have the option to buy health insurance? It really comes down to that question.

Is it zero- all those uninsured people should figure it out on their own or use the ER when needed and the hospitals can collect from people with insurance to cover the loss?

Or is it some percentage? In which case, we need to figure out how to make the system work better.

An interesting provision in the Senate Bill is the elimination of the ACA tax is retroactive to 2016, meaning those who paid the 3.8% ACA tax on sums over 250k will love getting a nice tax refund.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1803
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3076 on: July 07, 2017, 02:17:25 PM »
Even if you do everything right financially, read this excellent piece by Ron Lieber, about the descent into Medicaid.
Also, the article reveals that long term care insurance and eldercare lawyers can be scammers.

One Woman’s Slide From Middle Class to Medicaid

https://nyti.ms/2uRaVjs

Exflyboy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5636
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Corvallis, Oregon
  • Expat Brit living in the New World..:)
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3077 on: July 08, 2017, 02:05:10 PM »
Republicans ask Dems: Where's your health plan?

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/340683-republicans-ask-dems-wheres-your-healthcare-plan

LOL?

The audacity of the GOP is beyond belief.. Sure the Dems should help with a plan.. So the GOP makes sure it tries to come up with a plan completely behind closed doors.. and fails twice!

And this is the most advanced nation on Earth!

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1982
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3078 on: July 10, 2017, 07:48:40 AM »
It's fairly well established in the MMM community that giving (or worse, lending) money to family members is generally a bad idea, as they'll come to depend on it. Helping people is not always a good thing and does create dependence. How is that hard to grasp?

Difference being that not giving a few thousand or whatever to family won't cause them to die because they can't afford cancer treatments but cutting Medicaid or backdoor evisceration of protections for pre-exisiting conditions does.  Many studies show that it's X # of deaths per Y # of uninsured.  Or is that fake news? 

Just admit that many of you right wingers just don't give a shit about people, you don't care if people die.   Fucking sociopaths.
They care a lot about fetuses though!

But really, I do have a LOT of conservative family members.  A LOT.  And ... they sort of don't care if people die.  I don't mean that in a "cold-hearted" way, but more of a practical way.

You know we've touched on this in several threads, but not sure if we've really delved deeply into it.

Aside from the cost of care being high and the need to cut it, there's the practical aspect and the caring aspect
- babies born early that spend a lot of time in the NICU cost a lot of money
- many of them have life-long problems that cost a lot of money, both health-wise and education wise
- babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome, or with other birth defects like down syndrome, or genetic disorders - they cost money.  To care for medically, and to educate.
- people get cancer.  Cancer treatment is expensive.
- people get diabetes, sometimes kids get Type 1, treatment is expensive
- people get old and sick.  And end of life care is expensive, and sometimes you need it for a very long time
- people will spend an inordinate amount of money, time, effort, to keep someone alive
- we don't allow euthanasia.  What if someone would rather die peacefully than live on machines for years, or die by refusing to eat?
- young people die because they get sick and don't have insurance and aren't able to get care

So, where do you draw the line?  I've got friends in Canada and Europe and the UK where they get care.  Yes, their taxes are high.  But they don't generally go broke due to medical issues.

In the US, we are such "individuals"... honestly, a lot of my conservative family members are practical.  People die.  They get that.  My cousin died of a leg infection.  Sometimes your baby is born too early and they die.  Sometimes you get cancer, and your church has a spaghetti dinner and a pancake breakfast (or 3) because your insurance sucks, or you don't have it at all.  But then you can't afford to finish chemo, so you die.  Sometimes you get old, and you cannot afford a home.  You don't want to go in one anyway.  So a few friends and family members may help you out, come by, bring dinner.  But in the end, you are living alone, you have an aneurysm burst and you die (my dad).

It's complicated, especially when you are talking millions of dollars.  I saw a quote yesterday "by having a lifetime cap on insurance, you are telling someone that they aren't worth any more money to keep alive".  Which sounds harsh.  And it is.  A preemie can hit that in months, and that preemie can go on to grow up and get a job and pay taxes.  On the other hand, that preemie might require a lifetime of specialized care in a special home, and that can run even higher.

Oooo, oooo, so the post above where I was wrestling with the oddness of my father and  his family and their super conservative mindest that views poor people as too stupid to earn proper livings and too irresponsible to make smart choices like buy health insurance?  So...guess who never bothered to buy health insurance in his twenties, when his wife was pregnant with their first child (me)? And guess who ended up being an emergency c-section preemie who required intensive care for 2 weeks? Me!  And guess who got away with not having hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills that he couldn't possibly pay on his salary by the skin of his teeth? My dad. But HOW, you ask? By buying full coverage health insurance AFTER the emergency delivery...from his own father...because one of the two businesses  my dad's family owned was INSURANCE!!!  So handy... Extreme nepotism for the win!

Now, this did teach my father a lesson about never going without health insurance. But it NEVER made him more compassionate or understanding toward any OTHER person who went without insurance out of carelessness, thoughtlessness, or poverty and suffered financially or physically because of it. Those people just deserved whatever they got.

If your grandfather was the only shareholder in that insurance company, then this is basically him self-insuring your father's medical expenses. If there are other shareholders (or if your grandfather wasn't a shareholder at all, just a CEO, for example), it seems like they could sue him for fraud. Perhaps they chose not to because they were fine with covering each other's families. Or perhaps they didn't know?

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1821
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3079 on: July 10, 2017, 03:07:28 PM »
It's fairly well established in the MMM community that giving (or worse, lending) money to family members is generally a bad idea, as they'll come to depend on it. Helping people is not always a good thing and does create dependence. How is that hard to grasp?

Difference being that not giving a few thousand or whatever to family won't cause them to die because they can't afford cancer treatments but cutting Medicaid or backdoor evisceration of protections for pre-exisiting conditions does.  Many studies show that it's X # of deaths per Y # of uninsured.  Or is that fake news? 

Just admit that many of you right wingers just don't give a shit about people, you don't care if people die.   Fucking sociopaths.
They care a lot about fetuses though!

But really, I do have a LOT of conservative family members.  A LOT.  And ... they sort of don't care if people die.  I don't mean that in a "cold-hearted" way, but more of a practical way.

You know we've touched on this in several threads, but not sure if we've really delved deeply into it.

Aside from the cost of care being high and the need to cut it, there's the practical aspect and the caring aspect
- babies born early that spend a lot of time in the NICU cost a lot of money
- many of them have life-long problems that cost a lot of money, both health-wise and education wise
- babies born with fetal alcohol syndrome, or with other birth defects like down syndrome, or genetic disorders - they cost money.  To care for medically, and to educate.
- people get cancer.  Cancer treatment is expensive.
- people get diabetes, sometimes kids get Type 1, treatment is expensive
- people get old and sick.  And end of life care is expensive, and sometimes you need it for a very long time
- people will spend an inordinate amount of money, time, effort, to keep someone alive
- we don't allow euthanasia.  What if someone would rather die peacefully than live on machines for years, or die by refusing to eat?
- young people die because they get sick and don't have insurance and aren't able to get care

So, where do you draw the line?  I've got friends in Canada and Europe and the UK where they get care.  Yes, their taxes are high.  But they don't generally go broke due to medical issues.

In the US, we are such "individuals"... honestly, a lot of my conservative family members are practical.  People die.  They get that.  My cousin died of a leg infection.  Sometimes your baby is born too early and they die.  Sometimes you get cancer, and your church has a spaghetti dinner and a pancake breakfast (or 3) because your insurance sucks, or you don't have it at all.  But then you can't afford to finish chemo, so you die.  Sometimes you get old, and you cannot afford a home.  You don't want to go in one anyway.  So a few friends and family members may help you out, come by, bring dinner.  But in the end, you are living alone, you have an aneurysm burst and you die (my dad).

It's complicated, especially when you are talking millions of dollars.  I saw a quote yesterday "by having a lifetime cap on insurance, you are telling someone that they aren't worth any more money to keep alive".  Which sounds harsh.  And it is.  A preemie can hit that in months, and that preemie can go on to grow up and get a job and pay taxes.  On the other hand, that preemie might require a lifetime of specialized care in a special home, and that can run even higher.

Oooo, oooo, so the post above where I was wrestling with the oddness of my father and  his family and their super conservative mindest that views poor people as too stupid to earn proper livings and too irresponsible to make smart choices like buy health insurance?  So...guess who never bothered to buy health insurance in his twenties, when his wife was pregnant with their first child (me)? And guess who ended up being an emergency c-section preemie who required intensive care for 2 weeks? Me!  And guess who got away with not having hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills that he couldn't possibly pay on his salary by the skin of his teeth? My dad. But HOW, you ask? By buying full coverage health insurance AFTER the emergency delivery...from his own father...because one of the two businesses  my dad's family owned was INSURANCE!!!  So handy... Extreme nepotism for the win!

Now, this did teach my father a lesson about never going without health insurance. But it NEVER made him more compassionate or understanding toward any OTHER person who went without insurance out of carelessness, thoughtlessness, or poverty and suffered financially or physically because of it. Those people just deserved whatever they got.

If your grandfather was the only shareholder in that insurance company, then this is basically him self-insuring your father's medical expenses. If there are other shareholders (or if your grandfather wasn't a shareholder at all, just a CEO, for example), it seems like they could sue him for fraud. Perhaps they chose not to because they were fine with covering each other's families. Or perhaps they didn't know?

It was a family business, so the shareholders were all in my father's family.  So presumably they all agreed to issue a policy covering preexisting conditions or some such, within a day of my birth/emergency delivery.  It's just really an ironic story, I think, given how judgemental my dad always was about people being careless with stuff like that.

ysette9

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3396
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3080 on: July 11, 2017, 12:13:39 PM »
Quote
It's just really an ironic story, I think, given how judgemental my dad always was about people being careless with stuff like that.

I find myself thinking personally that so much of what I view as wrong with our society comes down to a lack of ability or willingness to empathize with the plight of others. I can't pretend to know what it is like to be really rich or grow up poor or be a minority, but I can take a moment to do a thought experiment and see where that takes me. I have some awareness of how very fortunate I have been in life and how others may not necessarily have had all of those breaks. That makes me much more willing to support policies to level the playing field a bit and provide people with enough of a safety net to be able to better themselves.

Perhaps I am overly sensitive? Perhaps others purposefully turn off their empathy switch? I'm not sure.

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8106
  • Registered member
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3081 on: July 11, 2017, 12:29:17 PM »


Oooo, oooo, so the post above where I was wrestling with the oddness of my father and  his family and their super conservative mindest that views poor people as too stupid to earn proper livings and too irresponsible to make smart choices like buy health insurance?  So...guess who never bothered to buy health insurance in his twenties, when his wife was pregnant with their first child (me)? And guess who ended up being an emergency c-section preemie who required intensive care for 2 weeks? Me!  And guess who got away with not having hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills that he couldn't possibly pay on his salary by the skin of his teeth? My dad. But HOW, you ask? By buying full coverage health insurance AFTER the emergency delivery...from his own father...because one of the two businesses  my dad's family owned was INSURANCE!!!  So handy... Extreme nepotism for the win!

Now, this did teach my father a lesson about never going without health insurance. But it NEVER made him more compassionate or understanding toward any OTHER person who went without insurance out of carelessness, thoughtlessness, or poverty and suffered financially or physically because of it. Those people just deserved whatever they got.

If your grandfather was the only shareholder in that insurance company, then this is basically him self-insuring your father's medical expenses. If there are other shareholders (or if your grandfather wasn't a shareholder at all, just a CEO, for example), it seems like they could sue him for fraud. Perhaps they chose not to because they were fine with covering each other's families. Or perhaps they didn't know?

It was a family business, so the shareholders were all in my father's family.  So presumably they all agreed to issue a policy covering preexisting conditions or some such, within a day of my birth/emergency delivery.  It's just really an ironic story, I think, given how judgemental my dad always was about people being careless with stuff like that.

Don't worry, they just passed the costs on to their other insured by raising premiums (allowed by regulators since payouts increased).

Exflyboy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5636
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Corvallis, Oregon
  • Expat Brit living in the New World..:)
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3082 on: July 11, 2017, 02:22:16 PM »
OK, new GOP healthcare bill to be rolled out on Thursday.

No doubt this will fix everything.. Pass me the popcorn!

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7468
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3083 on: July 11, 2017, 04:39:00 PM »
The Senate just released their new draft.  It still cuts Medicaid (not just expanded Medicaid, all of Medicaid) but now it keeps some of the ACA taxes on the wealthy in order to fund bigger premium subsidies for poor people.

Basically, they are making the ACA slightly less generous, and then repealing Medicaid.  It's not so much a repeal and replace of the ACA anymore, more like a straight up conservative fantasy entitlement rollback in an ACA repeal disguise, even though it doesn't really do much to the ACA.

But it does more clearly reveal republican priorities, which I guess is good.  Turns out they kind of like the ACA (it originally being their own idea, after all) but they really hate Medicaid providing healthcare to poor people.  Now they just need to sell that message to the red states that rely on Medicaid funding.

Preview of the CBO score: they already predicted these Medicaid cuts would take primary care away from 15 million Americans, even if they somehow manage to keep all 7 million folks covered by retaining every cent of the ACA subsidies.

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1821
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3084 on: July 11, 2017, 05:11:38 PM »
I gotta give them a sick sort of credit. I was sure they would give up the Medicaid cuts before giving up their beloved tax cuts.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7468
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3085 on: July 11, 2017, 06:06:23 PM »
I gotta give them a sick sort of credit. I was sure they would give up the Medicaid cuts before giving up their beloved tax cuts.

Turns out their hatred of poor people is stronger than their love for rich people?

But it's half measure on both sides.  They left in some of the tax cuts, and they can always get the rest when they move on to tax "reform", after passing their ACA "repeal".  And they're going all the way on Medicaid but only scaling back the ACA's premium subsidies, so they're still shitting on poor people but not as much as their original bill.

Frankly, I'm shocked Mitch thinks any of this is a good idea.  Whatever Republicans pass on their own will be widely hated, and he knows that.  Much better to pass a bipartisan plan (maybe even one that actually helps improve the situation, but that's just a detail) and be able to share the blame on all sides when the inevitable public backlash comes.  That's how Republicans passed Medicare reform in the 80s, right?  They got buy-in from some Democrats and all sides made painful concessions to get a compromise plan that everyone hated, but both sides took the heat for it from the public.  Cutting entitlements is hard.
« Last Edit: July 11, 2017, 06:14:39 PM by sol »

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1821
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3086 on: July 11, 2017, 06:16:21 PM »
I gotta give them a sick sort of credit. I was sure they would give up the Medicaid cuts before giving up their beloved tax cuts.

Turns out their hatred of poor people is stronger than their love for rich people?

But it's half measure on both sides.  They left in some of the tax cuts, and they can always get the rest when they move on to tax "reform", after passing their ACA "repeal".  And they're going all the way on Medicaid but only scaling back the ACA's premium subsidies, so they're still shitting on poor people but not as much as their original bill.

Frankly, I'm shocked Mitch thinks any of this is a good idea.  Whatever Republicans pass on their own will be widely hated, and he knows that.  Much better to pass a bipartisan plan (maybe even one that actually helps improve the situation, but that's just a detail) and be able to share the blame on all sides when the inevitable public backlash comes.  That's how Republicans passed Medicare reform in the 80s, right?  They got buy-in from some Democrats and all sides made painful concessions to get a compromise plan that everyone hated, but both sides took the heat for it from the public.  Cutting entitlements is hard.

When you put it like that, it does actually seem less surprising.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8765
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3087 on: July 11, 2017, 07:20:04 PM »
Anyone else seem mildly suspicious that DJT Jr's fiasco is happening as the GOP rolls out their newest, latest health-care bill?  ... as if there is a strategy of just setting multiple dumpsters on fire while they burn down the building from below?

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1803
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3088 on: July 11, 2017, 07:21:35 PM »
Anyone else seem mildly suspicious that DJT Jr's fiasco is happening as the GOP rolls out their newest, latest health-care bill?  ... as if there is a strategy of just setting multiple dumpsters on fire while they burn down the building from below?

That would give the Trumps too much credit for skill and craft.

fuzzy math

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 634
  • Location: PNW ---> Midwest (for now)
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3089 on: July 11, 2017, 08:52:50 PM »
And they delayed the next summer recess. Ted Cruz submitted some of the latest amendments. They'll probably just left him speak nonstop until every member of the senate is crying and agrees to vote yes just to make him shut up.

I have a bad feeling its going to go through this time.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1803
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3090 on: July 11, 2017, 10:27:17 PM »
They don't have Susan Collins.

"Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said, “Minor changes and tweaks will not be sufficient to win my support for the bill.”"

I'm pretty sure there are 2 more Republican Senators that are worried about Medicaid cuts, Dean Heller of Nevada, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Shelley Capito of West Virginia, and a couple of others.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7468
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3091 on: July 12, 2017, 10:18:41 AM »
I gotta give them a sick sort of credit. I was sure they would give up the Medicaid cuts before giving up their beloved tax cuts.

Turns out their hatred of poor people is stronger than their love for rich people?

When you put it like that, it does actually seem less surprising.

The Post speculates this morning that the Republicans are agreeing to keep the investment income tax because...

a)  it is the single largest revenue raiser in the ACA, making it easier for them to balance the books as required by reconciliation and pass with 50 votes.
b)  it helps reframe the bill so it doesn't look quite so much like reverse-robin-hooding.
c)  unlike the medical devices industry and the pharma industry, investors don't have a lobbying group pushing to repeal this tax.

So the GOP bill still repeals the ACA taxes on medical devices, drug companies, health insurance companies, tanning salons, medicare part A, and executive compensation.  Those groups apparently have good lobbyists the GOP wants to keep happy, and their tax breaks are individually small.  Since no one is complaining about the 3.8% tax on investment income over $250k, that one will probably stay in place.

Of course all of this negotiation is merely a sideshow, because they're only trying to save some of the 7 million people who will lose coverage under the GOP plan's individual marketplace, but they're still holding fast to the plan to take Medicaid away from 15 million people (at first, then more after that by capping the growth).  I'm not sure how many moderate GOP senators will be appeased by a smaller amount of coverage losses on the marketplace, but still the full amount of coverage losses under Medicaid.

Hey, remember when Trump said "Everybody's going to be covered" and "There will be no cuts to Medicaid"?  Those were good times.

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Age: 36
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3092 on: July 12, 2017, 10:32:08 AM »
I gotta give them a sick sort of credit. I was sure they would give up the Medicaid cuts before giving up their beloved tax cuts.

Turns out their hatred of poor people is stronger than their love for rich people?

When you put it like that, it does actually seem less surprising.

The Post speculates this morning that the Republicans are agreeing to keep the investment income tax because...

a)  it is the single largest revenue raiser in the ACA, making it easier for them to balance the books as required by reconciliation and pass with 50 votes.
b)  it helps reframe the bill so it doesn't look quite so much like reverse-robin-hooding.
c)  unlike the medical devices industry and the pharma industry, investors don't have a lobbying group pushing to repeal this tax.

So the GOP bill still repeals the ACA taxes on medical devices, drug companies, health insurance companies, tanning salons, medicare part A, and executive compensation.  Those groups apparently have good lobbyists the GOP wants to keep happy, and their tax breaks are individually small.  Since no one is complaining about the 3.8% tax on investment income over $250k, that one will probably stay in place.

Of course all of this negotiation is merely a sideshow, because they're only trying to save some of the 7 million people who will lose coverage under the GOP plan's individual marketplace, but they're still holding fast to the plan to take Medicaid away from 15 million people (at first, then more after that by capping the growth).  I'm not sure how many moderate GOP senators will be appeased by a smaller amount of coverage losses on the marketplace, but still the full amount of coverage losses under Medicaid.

Hey, remember when Trump said "Everybody's going to be covered" and "There will be no cuts to Medicaid"?  Those were good times.

Hrm... nothing about the medicare surtax? If they do pass something I hope they retroactively get rid of the medicare surtax, this is the only year I could save some dough with it due to FIRE.

Ideally, of course, they would do nothing (which is most probable).

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1982
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3093 on: July 12, 2017, 02:29:40 PM »
I gotta give them a sick sort of credit. I was sure they would give up the Medicaid cuts before giving up their beloved tax cuts.

Turns out their hatred of poor people is stronger than their love for rich people?

But it's half measure on both sides.  They left in some of the tax cuts, and they can always get the rest when they move on to tax "reform", after passing their ACA "repeal".  And they're going all the way on Medicaid but only scaling back the ACA's premium subsidies, so they're still shitting on poor people but not as much as their original bill.

Frankly, I'm shocked Mitch thinks any of this is a good idea.  Whatever Republicans pass on their own will be widely hated, and he knows that.  Much better to pass a bipartisan plan (maybe even one that actually helps improve the situation, but that's just a detail) and be able to share the blame on all sides when the inevitable public backlash comes.  That's how Republicans passed Medicare reform in the 80s, right?  They got buy-in from some Democrats and all sides made painful concessions to get a compromise plan that everyone hated, but both sides took the heat for it from the public.  Cutting entitlements is hard.

I think that there are substantial primary consequences for republicans if they cannot pass a bill. Those are exactly the opposite of the general election consequences you're describing here. McConnel is hoping we're early enough in the cycle that there will be tax reform and infrastructure successes that they can use to keep the House.

jim555

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1861
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3094 on: July 13, 2017, 10:24:37 AM »
Mitch McTurtle just pinched out the latest bill.  As expected, even worse than the last version.

https://www.scribd.com/document/353689897/BetterCareJuly13-2017#from_embed

Exflyboy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5636
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Corvallis, Oregon
  • Expat Brit living in the New World..:)
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3095 on: July 13, 2017, 10:46:03 AM »
Mitch McTurtle just pinched out the latest bill.  As expected, even worse than the last version.

https://www.scribd.com/document/353689897/BetterCareJuly13-2017#from_embed

Well that was a fun read.. And probably a waste of time as I doubt they will get the votes for this one either.

dividendman

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Age: 36
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3096 on: July 13, 2017, 11:14:44 AM »
I think that there are substantial primary consequences for republicans if they cannot pass a bill. Those are exactly the opposite of the general election consequences you're describing here. McConnel is hoping we're early enough in the cycle that there will be tax reform and infrastructure successes that they can use to keep the House.

I think, strategy wise, it's better for Republicans to do something on health care right *before* the mid-terms. This allows them to say they did what they said on healthcare, but nobody is getting fucked by the consequences yet so it won't cost them.

If they pass it this early, by next year election time many people will have already been fucked by it and might vote against them due to that.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7468
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3097 on: July 13, 2017, 11:40:54 AM »
Mitch McTurtle just pinched out the latest bill.  As expected, even worse than the last version.

The way this process has been going thus far, I wouldn't be surprised if the new version mandates colonoscopies starting at age 18 and requires every American kill a kitten to qualify for insurance. 

I'm baffled at the Republican approach to healthcare reform.  They spent all these years complaining about specific problems with the ACA, and now that they have the chance to fix them they are instead making every single of those same problems much, much worse. 

On the bright side, it's beginnign to look less and less likely they will be able to do anything at all.  The country passed the ACA by voting for a sweeping Democratic majority in both houses, including a filibuster proof 60 senators.  The Republicans just didn't get that many votes this time around, so it looks like they only have the power to break healthcare, not actually fix it. 

it's unfair so say the tax on insurance companies and medical devices goes to rich people - in theory reducing taxes on them should reduce premiums and/or out of pocket costs for all. 

Did I say that?  I didn't mean to say that.

But it's a slippery slope you're on.  The Republican philosophical basis for tax cuts has always been closely tied to advancing the interests of rich people, by advancing the interests of businesses that are owned by rich people, at the expense of poor people who work for those businesses.  They call it a "pro-business" agenda and claim they are trying to grow the economy, and that businesses are merely pass-through entities that connect poor people to goods and services, but it's closer to the truth to say modern wealth-inequality is perpetuated by businesses which concentrate wealth in the hands of the minority of wealthy business owners, by extracting wealth from the majority of consumers.

Yes, businesses respond to market forces like tax increases by raising prices, but don't fall for the supply-side economics trap of believing that anything you make will get bought.  Economies are driven by demand from buyers, not by supply from sellers.  Businesses profit when people want their services, which is the reason why it is consumers, not business owners, who determine the health of our economy.  This is the reason why taxes on businesses are less harmful to the economy than taxes on consumers.  If you tax consumers and take away their ability to buy goods, the business gets nothing.  If you tax businesses and they raise prices (instead of reducing profits for the owner), the business still makes money by selling because consumers are still buying.

Republicans usually think that entire paragraph is bologna.  They are so invested in the "job-creator" mythos that they they don't see any role at all for consumers in our economy.  They think that the rich white men who own businesses are the backbone of the American economy, they decide what gets made and sold, and consumers will inevitably show up to buy whatever crap the owners decide on.  This is the supply side myth, the Joe The Plumber myth, the trickle down myth, the Reaganomics myth, the "tax cuts generate government revenue" myth, the Republican myth.  We keep disproving it again, decade after decade, but Ben Stein is just convinced it's inarguably true.  It just HAS to be, he can feel it in his bones.

One of these days, maybe even in my lifetime, the Republican party will start looking at data as evidence, instead of as a grand liberal plot to undermine their core beliefs.

Inaya

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1541
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Chicago, IL
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3098 on: July 13, 2017, 01:04:24 PM »
One of the only viewpoints on the bill that I agree with on Republicans is that it's unfair so say the tax on insurance companies and medical devices goes to rich people - in theory reducing taxes on them should reduce premiums and/or out of pocket costs for all.

It's absolutely fair to say that when those taxes are used to fund tax cuts to the wealthy. I believe this was the case in the first two (?) versions if not this one.

DavidAnnArbor

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1803
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Re: What comes after the ACA?
« Reply #3099 on: July 13, 2017, 04:16:22 PM »
Mitch McTurtle just pinched out the latest bill.  As expected, even worse than the last version.

The way this process has been going thus far, I wouldn't be surprised if the new version mandates colonoscopies starting at age 18 and requires every American kill a kitten to qualify for insurance. 

I'm baffled at the Republican approach to healthcare reform.  They spent all these years complaining about specific problems with the ACA, and now that they have the chance to fix them they are instead making every single of those same problems much, much worse. 

On the bright side, it's beginnign to look less and less likely they will be able to do anything at all.  The country passed the ACA by voting for a sweeping Democratic majority in both houses, including a filibuster proof 60 senators.  The Republicans just didn't get that many votes this time around, so it looks like they only have the power to break healthcare, not actually fix it. 

it's unfair so say the tax on insurance companies and medical devices goes to rich people - in theory reducing taxes on them should reduce premiums and/or out of pocket costs for all. 

Did I say that?  I didn't mean to say that.

But it's a slippery slope you're on.  The Republican philosophical basis for tax cuts has always been closely tied to advancing the interests of rich people, by advancing the interests of businesses that are owned by rich people, at the expense of poor people who work for those businesses.  They call it a "pro-business" agenda and claim they are trying to grow the economy, and that businesses are merely pass-through entities that connect poor people to goods and services, but it's closer to the truth to say modern wealth-inequality is perpetuated by businesses which concentrate wealth in the hands of the minority of wealthy business owners, by extracting wealth from the majority of consumers.

Yes, businesses respond to market forces like tax increases by raising prices, but don't fall for the supply-side economics trap of believing that anything you make will get bought.  Economies are driven by demand from buyers, not by supply from sellers.  Businesses profit when people want their services, which is the reason why it is consumers, not business owners, who determine the health of our economy.  This is the reason why taxes on businesses are less harmful to the economy than taxes on consumers.  If you tax consumers and take away their ability to buy goods, the business gets nothing.  If you tax businesses and they raise prices (instead of reducing profits for the owner), the business still makes money by selling because consumers are still buying.

Republicans usually think that entire paragraph is bologna.  They are so invested in the "job-creator" mythos that they they don't see any role at all for consumers in our economy.  They think that the rich white men who own businesses are the backbone of the American economy, they decide what gets made and sold, and consumers will inevitably show up to buy whatever crap the owners decide on.  This is the supply side myth, the Joe The Plumber myth, the trickle down myth, the Reaganomics myth, the "tax cuts generate government revenue" myth, the Republican myth.  We keep disproving it again, decade after decade, but Ben Stein is just convinced it's inarguably true.  It just HAS to be, he can feel it in his bones.

One of these days, maybe even in my lifetime, the Republican party will start looking at data as evidence, instead of as a grand liberal plot to undermine their core beliefs.

Econ 101 states that when you put a tax on a business, it increases the cost of goods sold, causing a shift in the supply curve.  This will indirectly cause them to raise prices and reduce supply, but the profits go down from the optimal supply and demand price point as they have less supply units sold.  So the producer and consumer lose but the government wins.  When you take away the tax, the producer and consumer both win.  So it's misleading to state that removing the tax from health insurers will result in benefits to only the producer.

One complicating factor with this is that in the status quo the tax comes back to the consumer in the form of subsidies.  So in effect, the producer loses and the consumer breaks even.

Bottom line is I'd rather that Obamacare be funded through taxes on the top 1% of income than on health insurers and medical device companies, solely out of self interest as I'm not in the top 1%.

The slope of that curve really matters. If you keep these taxes then it might be that the supply curve, even if it shifts, doesn't really change the demand.