Affordable Care Act / ObamaCare

[knapplc]

Knappic, you seem to have this seething animus toward Romney that is clouding your responses in a way that is different from your usually reasoned analysis.

 

 

Out of curiosity, where are you getting "seething animus" (I presume you mean "animosity?") towards Mitt Romney in my posts?

[Comish]

Knappic, you seem to have this seething animus toward Romney that is clouding your responses in a way that is different from your usually reasoned analysis.

 

 

Out of curiosity, where are you getting "seething animus" (I presume you mean "animosity?") towards Mitt Romney in my posts?

Yes (animus is just the root of animosity)...........I did think you were prefacing almost every response in this thread by disparaging Ronmey, but if that was not your intent, I stand corrected.

What would have been a better statement on my part was clarifying my feeling that the analogy of Romneycare vs Obamcare is flawed because Romney has publicly state many times his plan was definitely NOT a model for a federal plan.

[Hayseed]

Yes. And they are also reacting to the letter behind the name of the guy promulgating the bill (D). There would be a decidedly different tune being sung here had a Republican president implemented this kind of healthcare act.

 

I'd like to think you are 100% wrong here, but...

 

I've said this before, if Congress would have simply said something along the lines of:

 

"We're going to provide a low cost health insurance plan to those who do not have it..."

 

I sincerely doubt there would have been this ugly partisan bickering let alone a court case which goes all the way to scotus.

 

Agree....they could've called it the Festivus For The Rest Of Us plan.

[knapplc]

 

Agree....they could've called it the Festivus For The Rest Of Us plan.

 

So, does this thread count as the Airing of Grievances? Can't wait to put up the Festivus Pole.

 

[JJ Husker]

My opposition to the ACA has very little to do with it being Obama's or the democrats plan. There are many features of it I like; Students being able to stay on the parents plan until age 26, the elimination of pre-existing conditions exclusions, guaranteed issue, and the stipulation that insurance companies must spend a certain percentage on care. The things I don't like is that I am convinced it does virtually nothing to address the real problem of runaway care and insurance costs. I also do not like the way it was passed or a lot of the unknowns and superfluous items connected to it. there are way too many things that are TBD by those who end up managing it. I am opposed to the mandate of "buy insurance or get taxed" more on philosophical grounds than anything. I believe a mandate like that is pretty much required to begin eliminating some of the cost shifting problem which is one of the biggest problems with our current system. But, I just find it totally distatsteful that our government can, in essence, force people to participate in a market they do not wish to. Realistically, virtually 100% of everyone will have to participate in that market at some point. It would just be a lot more palatable if every one chose to participate rather than being coerced by big brother. I would much prefer that if someone wanted to opt out that they could simply sign a waiver of care and then be made to suffer the consequences of their bad choice. This is more of the same socialistic tendency of the healthy subsidizing the unhealthy and the rich subsidizing the poor.

 

The issue of rapidly inflating health care and insurance is only going to get worse before it gets better. We will soon be adding numerous people to the roles of the insured and these, for the most part, will be people who have not had insurance for a variety of reasons. They will be people who are going to use more than they contribute. That will still cause the shifting of costs and probably at an exponentially faster rate. The ACA cured nothing and for the foreseeable future has made things worse.

[krill]

My opposition to the ACA has very little to do with it being Obama's or the democrats plan. There are many features of it I like; Students being able to stay on the parents plan until age 26, the elimination of pre-existing conditions exclusions, guaranteed issue, and the stipulation that insurance companies must spend a certain percentage on care.

 

How do you get coverage for prexisting conditions without a mandate to have coverage before you have major medical problems? How do we deal with the $44+ billion in losses that providers incur from providing care to the uninsured? How does government get into the business of regulating the quality of insurance, medical loss ratios, etc. without it being big government?

 

I think we all wish it was easy and not a politically charged subject, but it's not.

[JJ Husker]

My opposition to the ACA has very little to do with it being Obama's or the democrats plan. There are many features of it I like; Students being able to stay on the parents plan until age 26, the elimination of pre-existing conditions exclusions, guaranteed issue, and the stipulation that insurance companies must spend a certain percentage on care.

 

How do you get coverage for prexisting conditions without a mandate to have coverage before you have major medical problems? You don't and the ACA still doesn't insure that a person will have coverage before they have major problems. It only guaranteees that they will have paid a tax or gotten coverage. How do we deal with the $44+ billion in losses that providers incur from providing care to the uninsured? Quite providing care to the uninsured. How does government get into the business of regulating the quality of insurance, medical loss ratios, etc. without it being big government? Exactly.

 

I think we all wish it was easy and not a politically charged subject, but it's not.

I said there were features I liked, not necessarily that I thought the government should have anything to do with it.

Of course we wish it were easy but I never said it was easy or not politically charged.

[lo country]

My opposition to the ACA has very little to do with it being Obama's or the democrats plan. There are many features of it I like; Students being able to stay on the parents plan until age 26, the elimination of pre-existing conditions exclusions, guaranteed issue, and the stipulation that insurance companies must spend a certain percentage on care.

 

How do you get coverage for prexisting conditions without a mandate to have coverage before you have major medical problems? How do we deal with the $44+ billion in losses that providers incur from providing care to the uninsured? How does government get into the business of regulating the quality of insurance, medical loss ratios, etc. without it being big government?

 

I think we all wish it was easy and not a politically charged subject, but it's not.

 

You allow insurance companies to run it.

 

Does the government run our cell phone service? No. You have ATT, Sprint, Verizon etc.......You also have Cricket, Boost and numerous pay as you go companies. The govt ie FCC sets the parameters in which these companies must work. If you want the cadilac plan, you get the Apple 4s wit unlimited everything. The mor people you add (friends and family) the service remains the same, but costs are reduced. Your total airtime is also less if all the people get equal minutes.

 

If you are financially pressed, get less of a plan, a lesser phone etc.... Sign for a two year contract or get a trac phone and pay as needed. Why pay for unlimited texting if all I need is to call my spouse, parents, kids, 911 etc......Same with insurance, why do all the plans include a list of a million areas covered when a young healthy person might only need a, b and c. The current system, other than long term or cancer coverage is pretty much the same for a healthy 18 year old and a sickly 70 year old. Changing this is a start. If the govt feels it needs to be involved then do so with parameters. Allow companies and individuals to tailor plans to their needs. The govt is no closer to knowing my health needs than the man on the moon.

 

As I noted above, the govt currently has a 5 trillion dollar debt, the Postal Service (a monopoly) is in financial ruin as is SS and Medicare. You really want the govt to now control a private sector entity that is 16% of our budget. I say this as a Cnservative. I wouldn't want Pres Reagan to be in control if it. For me it is an AMERICAN issue, not R or D. To make it so, will assure that we all lose in the end.

 

For the record, the current Administration does provide free cell phones with 200 minutes paid for and provided by the govt. You have to make below a certain level and you are eligible. Phone cell insurance model not too far off.

[krill]

That's a nice theory, but the market for consumer goods is in almost no way comparable to the delivery of health care.

 

It's funny that you keep bashing USPS too. It is in trouble because of congress forcing them to pre-fund benefits in a manner that no other government agency does, and mail delivery is a function of government that is explicitly granted in the constitution. Many small e-commerce businesses (e.g. eBay stores with low margin items) that cannot efficiently ship their goods with UPS or FedEx will lose big time if USPS service is degraded. I don't think breaking something to prove it doesn't work, and then complaining that it doesn't work is any way to govern.

[lo country]

That's a nice theory, but the market for consumer goods is in almost no way comparable to the delivery of health care.

 

It's funny that you keep bashing USPS too. It is in trouble because of congress forcing them to pre-fund benefits in a manner that no other government agency does, and mail delivery is a function of government that is explicitly granted in the constitution. Many small e-commerce businesses (e.g. eBay stores with low margin items) that cannot efficiently ship their goods with UPS or FedEx will lose big time if USPS service is degraded. I don't think breaking something to prove it doesn't work, and then complaining that it doesn't work is any way to govern.

 

True, market is driven by supply and demand, but now the govt is forcing me (others) to demand something (buy) that they do not need or want.

 

The USPS is governed by the Constitution and run by unions and as you mentioned, pre-paid benefits for employees who are not even hired yet. . Doesn't make it right because it is in the Constitution ie our current Health care. Neither group, con or lib agree with the majority opinion as written by Roberts. Hell even Romney's camp says it isn't a tax. If not a tax, it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The USPS is going under because it is obsolete. What do you have delivered by them that UPS or FedEx can't do cheaper or quicker. (For the record, I have several friends in various positions with the USPS)They have shifted (FedEx, UPS)to cover the new market. The attached says it better than I can.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2011/12/06/why-the-postal-service-is-going-out-of-business/2/

http://www.conservativedailynews.com/2011/09/usps-is-going-broke/

http://abcnews.go.com/US/us-postal-service-verge-broke-billions-dollars-red/story?id=12133108#.T_JUYo6UwUU

 

To the last bolded part, I agree with some parts of the health care, but I think it needs to be repealed and redone. I don't support the totality of the legislation at all. Unsure if that is what you meant. Just wanted to clarify my opinion. Making people by something they have no desire for is ridiculous.

[knapplc]

I agree with some parts of the health care, but I think it needs to be repealed and redone. I don't support the totality of the legislation at all.

 

I think everyone is in this boat (although I don't know that the proper solution is to repeal it and redo it). I don't think anyone, right, left or center, agrees with this whole deal.

 

Hopefully they can tweak it over the next year or two and morph it into something we can all tolerate.

[bhamHusker]

I think everyone is in this boat (although I don't know that the proper solution is to repeal it and redo it). I don't think anyone, right, left or center, agrees with this whole deal.

 

Hopefully they can tweak it over the next year or two and morph it into something we can all tolerate.

I think this is the thing that is most frustrating to those on the left. This is a compromise deal that resulted in health insurance reform, not health care reform. It incorporated every right-wing idea on how to attack (not solve) the problem, handed the health insurance industry a gaggle of gold egg laying geese, and in exchange the left got very little of what they really wanted (single payer universal health care wasn't ever even a consideration). In spite of the left abandoning so much to get so little, we have an apoplectic right wing raging over an imaginary bald-eagle-raping, socialist, freedom-stealing, end-of-America taxapolooza, and fighting what little progress the ACA represents tooth and nail. The only real lesson from this is that there is no compromise to be had with the right wingers - the left can give, give and give some more but when the bill finally passes, the right will still call the left nazi-commie-America-haters and then make repealing the deal the centerpiece of their election campaigns against the left. That's not to say that the opposite doesn't happen to a degree when the tables are turned, but the current right-wing establishment has taken this to a whole new level.

[JJ Husker]

 

I think this is the thing that is most frustrating to those on the left. This is a compromise deal that resulted in health insurance reform, not health care reform. It incorporated every right-wing idea on how to attack (not solve) the problem, handed the health insurance industry a gaggle of gold egg laying geese, and in exchange the left got very little of what they really wanted (single payer universal health care wasn't ever even a consideration). In spite of the left abandoning so much to get so little, we have an apoplectic right wing raging over an imaginary bald-eagle-raping, socialist, freedom-stealing, end-of-America taxapolooza, and fighting what little progress the ACA represents tooth and nail. The only real lesson from this is that there is no compromise to be had with the right wingers - the left can give, give and give some more but when the bill finally passes, the right will still call the left nazi-commie-America-haters and then make repealing the deal the centerpiece of their election campaigns against the left. That's not to say that the opposite doesn't happen to a degree when the tables are turned, but the current right-wing establishment has taken this to a whole new level.

 

I'm sure your right. All the fault must be a one-sided affair. Nevermind that it was the centerpiece of the Obama administrations efforts. Nevermind that it took Pelosi and other high ranking dems to tell us to pass it so we could find out what was in it. The real reason we got stuck with a crappy bill is because of those dad burned right-wing republicans.

 

What features of this bill do you attribute solely to the dems placating the repubs? What grand republican schemes are included in the bill? What features would it have included if it had not been for those dastardly repubs?

[Yossarian]

I think everyone is in this boat (although I don't know that the proper solution is to repeal it and redo it). I don't think anyone, right, left or center, agrees with this whole deal.

 

Hopefully they can tweak it over the next year or two and morph it into something we can all tolerate.

I think this is the thing that is most frustrating to those on the left. This is a compromise deal that resulted in health insurance reform, not health care reform. It incorporated every right-wing idea on how to attack (not solve) the problem, handed the health insurance industry a gaggle of gold egg laying geese, and in exchange the left got very little of what they really wanted (single payer universal health care wasn't ever even a consideration). In spite of the left abandoning so much to get so little, we have an apoplectic right wing raging over an imaginary bald-eagle-raping, socialist, freedom-stealing, end-of-America taxapolooza, and fighting what little progress the ACA represents tooth and nail. The only real lesson from this is that there is no compromise to be had with the right wingers - the left can give, give and give some more but when the bill finally passes, the right will still call the left nazi-commie-America-haters and then make repealing the deal the centerpiece of their election campaigns against the left. That's not to say that the opposite doesn't happen to a degree when the tables are turned, but the current right-wing establishment has taken this to a whole new level.

 

I was not aware that the Democrats needed a single Republican vote to pass the ACA in the House or Senate. Are you saying the Democrats compromised to get votes they didn't need nor get?

[krill]

What features of this bill do you attribute solely to the dems placating the repubs? What grand republican schemes are included in the bill? What features would it have included if it had not been for those dastardly repubs?

 

Quite a lot of the health care bill was written by the gang of six, including Republican senators Enzi, Grassley, and Snowe. It's seems obvious that 3 years is ancient history in politics, or a lot of you were never paying attention in the first place. House Republicans never had an incentive to publicity cooperate since Democrats had an overwhelming majority, and one by one Enzi, Grassley, and lastly Snowe dropped support of the bill after an avalanche of negative ads poisoned chances of a bipartisan support. So it finally came to the point where Democrats would have to pass it with no Republican votes or wait another 20 years for an attempt at health care reform.

 

There's no such thing as "start over and try again". There are so many stakeholders and competing interest in health care that the stars have to be perfectly aligned to even get people to talk about reform in a serious manner. Republicans never offered an alternative bill except for (as I recall) a laughable 2-3 page outline that Boehner flopped down on the floor one day, something that had obviously been written by an aide in about 5 minutes.