Affordable Care Act / ObamaCare

[bhamHusker]

Yeah, I can sit here and poke fun at some of the partisan rancor going on, but the reality is - and I think we all know this - this isn't the bill America needs. And I think all but the most hardcore left-wingers among us want smaller, more efficient government.

I'm guessing I'm one of (if not the) "leftiest" of the left on this board, and I'm all for smaller, more efficient government too. I just have very different opinions from those on the right with regards to where the shrinkage and streamlining needs to occur.

[bhamHusker]

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?

No, no, no. What I was saying is that a point of great frustration for many on the left is that inept Democratic leadership compromised far too much before the legislation was even introduced. While much of the left was clamoring for a single payer universal system like what most real countries have, what was put forward was a giant give-away to the health insurance industry. Single payer was never given any consideration in the futile hope that endorsing what is essentially a Republican solution would get some bi-partisan support. They capitulated before there was ever a fight, and then gave away even more when wheeling and dealing with Senate Republicans like Grassley and Snowe who ultimately voted against it anyway.

 

This is where the Democratic leadership are at their most naive and inept. They think that if they embrace Republican ideas, the Republicans will go along with them, but we've seen time and again that regardless of the issue, Republicans will blindly oppose anything put forward by Democrats (a glaring exception to the norm being when we want to bomb or invade a country). If Democrats adopt a Republican position, Republicans will merely shift their position to something even more ridiculous, and redraw the battle lines. In this environment, Republicans were never going to support anything put forward by this administration, and the Democrats' greatest failure was in compromising before the battle was even joined. Rather than caving as they did, they should have recognized the futility of trying to reach across the aisle. They should have stuck to principles and fought for what the left actually wanted. It might even have been a losing effort thanks to Republican sleeper agents like Nelson, Lieberman and the like, but it would have energized the left for a fight rather than leaving so many frustrated, apathetic and/or disillusioned by a hard fight for what they didn't really want in the first place.

 

What I did not say, though you seem to have interpreted as such, is that only one side was to blame for the bill. This is a failure of the Democratic leadership as much as anyone. Believe me, I think Democrats suck almost as much as the Republicans, and are as guilty as anyone for the problems we have. I generally blame our thoroughly broken and corrupt system for the fundamental problems we have, though. Republican v. Democrat drama is just a distraction. Unfortunately, I don't see anything changing any time soon, so we get to continue operating under the Donkey v. Elephant charade until the country finally crashes and burns. Maybe at least part of whatever reforms after that will be better.

 

 

Yos - I think this post probably answers your patronizing question too, but in the event that it needs to be stated more plainly for you, yes. I'm saying the Democrats foolishly gave away a great deal in the face of anticipated Republican opposition when they shouldn't have. They did so in hopes of getting a little bi-partisan support that would never come, and to accommodate DINOs like Nelson.

[gobiggergoredder]

Many more deaths can be attributed to an absence of health insurance than from terrorist attacks

 

I would love to see the data on this one.

[gobiggergoredder]

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

 

Why?

[lo country]

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?

No, no, no. What I was saying is that a point of great frustration for many on the left is that inept Democratic leadership compromised far too much before the legislation was even introduced. While much of the left was clamoring for a single payer universal system like what most real countries have, what was put forward was a giant give-away to the health insurance industry. Single payer was never given any consideration in the futile hope that endorsing what is essentially a Republican solution would get some bi-partisan support. They capitulated before there was ever a fight, and then gave away even more when wheeling and dealing with Senate Republicans like Grassley and Snowe who ultimately voted against it anyway.

 

This is where the Democratic leadership are at their most naive and inept. They think that if they embrace Republican ideas, the Republicans will go along with them, but we've seen time and again that regardless of the issue, Republicans will blindly oppose anything put forward by Democrats (a glaring exception to the norm being when we want to bomb or invade a country). If Democrats adopt a Republican position, Republicans will merely shift their position to something even more ridiculous, and redraw the battle lines. In this environment, Republicans were never going to support anything put forward by this administration, and the Democrats' greatest failure was in compromising before the battle was even joined. Rather than caving as they did, they should have recognized the futility of trying to reach across the aisle. They should have stuck to principles and fought for what the left actually wanted. It might even have been a losing effort thanks to Republican sleeper agents like Nelson, Lieberman and the like, but it would have energized the left for a fight rather than leaving so many frustrated, apathetic and/or disillusioned by a hard fight for what they didn't really want in the first place.

 

What I did not say, though you seem to have interpreted as such, is that only one side was to blame for the bill. This is a failure of the Democratic leadership as much as anyone. Believe me, I think Democrats suck almost as much as the Republicans, and are as guilty as anyone for the problems we have. I generally blame our thoroughly broken and corrupt system for the fundamental problems we have, though. Republican v. Democrat drama is just a distraction. Unfortunately, I don't see anything changing any time soon, so we get to continue operating under the Donkey v. Elephant charade until the country finally crashes and burns. Maybe at least part of whatever reforms after that will be better.

 

 

Yos - I think this post probably answers your patronizing question too, but in the event that it needs to be stated more plainly for you, yes. I'm saying the Democrats foolishly gave away a great deal in the face of anticipated Republican opposition when they shouldn't have. They did so in hopes of getting a little bi-partisan support that would never come, and to accommodate DINOs like Nelson.

 

For the sake of argument, can you please put a list of "real" countries?

 

What would form after the crash and burn would be a Republic. I think you would hate it more than you hate what we currently have. Just sayin.

['SkersRule]

You allow insurance companies to run it.

 

Oh god freaking HELL no! Giving the insurance companies, whose only goal is to maximze their bottom line, control over our healthcare system would be the absolute worst decision ever. I'm not a fan of anything ran by the government but I'd rather have the government run our healthcare than insurance companies!

 

The best way to run our healthcare system is to go forward and reduce costs, from the cost of attending med school to what is charged for services. For example, there's no reason why an MRI should cost 1,000 to 5,000 thousand dollars.

 

http://health.costhelper.com/mri.html

[Lil' Red]

Many more deaths can be attributed to an absence of health insurance than from terrorist attacks

 

I would love to see the data on this one.

 

A study I found concluded that 45,000 Americans die a year due to a lack of health insurance. According to The Nation Counterterrorism Center 17 American citizens died from terrorist attacks in 2011.

 

Link

 

Link

[lo country]

You allow insurance companies to run it.

 

Oh god freaking HELL no! Giving the insurance companies, whose only goal is to maximze their bottom line, control over our healthcare system would be the absolute worst decision ever. I'm not a fan of anything ran by the government but I'd rather have the government run our healthcare than insurance companies!

 

The best way to run our healthcare system is to go forward and reduce costs, from the cost of attending med school to what is charged for services. For example, there's no reason why an MRI should cost 1,000 to 5,000 thousand dollars.

 

http://health.costhelper.com/mri.html

 

Tort reform, which neither side wanted would be a start in the right direction. I am not for the govt controlling any type of service. Utility costs are high, why not let the govt own utility companies? Own the phone companies etc...... Businesses need to own the businesses. The govt does need to regulate prices, but that is hard to do when the education system costs so much to obtain the title of MD, let alone a specialist in a certain field. It is also hard to do in a free market economy where the bottom line for a company is to turn a profit. What has the govt run that has been done so with fiscal responsibility or even better than the private sector? Can you sight an example? Not trying to be argumentative, but can't think of an example where the govt runs anything well.

 

Here is a great article on the promises made that gave us this monstrosity. A rather long article, but explains how the medical industry, Pharm companies and AARP sold their souls to get this passed in return for "protection". Sad

 

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/02/undoing-obamacare

 

The bottom line, I would like to think that all AMERICANS want health care reform. Both sides might have a different view of what reform looks like, but I do not think this is it.

 

I for one do not look forward to my family deductible increasing to approximately 3k. I do not look forward to diminished services and increased costs. I do not look forward to not being allowed to see a specialist as "it is not economically prudent" mammograms and prostate exams being "recommended" later or not at all.

[gobiggergoredder]

Many more deaths can be attributed to an absence of health insurance than from terrorist attacks

 

I would love to see the data on this one.

 

A study I found concluded that 45,000 Americans die a year due to a lack of health insurance. According to The Nation Counterterrorism Center 17 American citizens died from terrorist attacks in 2011.

 

Link

 

Link

 

I applaud you effort. Many throw out statements and accept their opinion as fact.

 

I will be honest with you though (and now I get into my opinion), this article is bunk. There first two paragraphs paint the picture for the entire article.

 

 

A freelance cameraman's appendix ruptured and by the time he was admitted to surgery, it was too late. A self-employed mother of two is found dead in bed from undiagnosed heart disease. A 26-year-old aspiring fashion designer collapsed in her bathroom after feeling unusually fatigued for days.

What all three of these people have in common is that they experienced symptoms, but didn't seek care because they were uninsured and they worried about the hospital expense, according to their families. All three died.

 

 

A freelance cameraman's appendix ruptured and by the time he was admitted to surgery, it was too late. A self-employed mother of two is found dead in bed from undiagnosed heart disease. A 26-year-old aspiring fashion designer collapsed in her bathroom after feeling unusually fatigued for days.

What all three of these people have in common is that they experienced symptoms, but didn't seek care because they were uninsured and they worried about the hospital expense, according to their families. All three died.

 

The fundamental flaw in both your argument and the article is that no health care killed these people. I think this argument parallels gun control control. I don't want my whole argument to hinge on that technicality. I personally know of two adequately insured people that weren't feeling well, didn't go to the doctor and within months had heart attacks. Who do we blame for those instances? People with insurance still don't go to the doctor. It still costs a lot of money.

 

I also have issue with the state 'according to their family'. According to their family, every gang banger on KETV-7 was getting ready to turn their life around prior to getting gun down for selling drug.

 

Right or wrong, the American Public Health Association, who is providing the 45K number, clearly has skin in this game. It happens all the time, but a simple search of the APHA will give you a their stance on this issue.

[HSKR]

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?

No, no, no. What I was saying is that a point of great frustration for many on the left is that inept Democratic leadership compromised far too much before the legislation was even introduced. While much of the left was clamoring for a single payer universal system like what most real countries have, what was put forward was a giant give-away to the health insurance industry. Single payer was never given any consideration in the futile hope that endorsing what is essentially a Republican solution would get some bi-partisan support. They capitulated before there was ever a fight, and then gave away even more when wheeling and dealing with Senate Republicans like Grassley and Snowe who ultimately voted against it anyway.

 

This is where the Democratic leadership are at their most naive and inept. They think that if they embrace Republican ideas, the Republicans will go along with them, but we've seen time and again that regardless of the issue, Republicans will blindly oppose anything put forward by Democrats (a glaring exception to the norm being when we want to bomb or invade a country). If Democrats adopt a Republican position, Republicans will merely shift their position to something even more ridiculous, and redraw the battle lines. In this environment, Republicans were never going to support anything put forward by this administration, and the Democrats' greatest failure was in compromising before the battle was even joined. Rather than caving as they did, they should have recognized the futility of trying to reach across the aisle. They should have stuck to principles and fought for what the left actually wanted. It might even have been a losing effort thanks to Republican sleeper agents like Nelson, Lieberman and the like, but it would have energized the left for a fight rather than leaving so many frustrated, apathetic and/or disillusioned by a hard fight for what they didn't really want in the first place.

 

What I did not say, though you seem to have interpreted as such, is that only one side was to blame for the bill. This is a failure of the Democratic leadership as much as anyone. Believe me, I think Democrats suck almost as much as the Republicans, and are as guilty as anyone for the problems we have. I generally blame our thoroughly broken and corrupt system for the fundamental problems we have, though. Republican v. Democrat drama is just a distraction. Unfortunately, I don't see anything changing any time soon, so we get to continue operating under the Donkey v. Elephant charade until the country finally crashes and burns. Maybe at least part of whatever reforms after that will be better.

 

 

Yos - I think this post probably answers your patronizing question too, but in the event that it needs to be stated more plainly for you, yes. I'm saying the Democrats foolishly gave away a great deal in the face of anticipated Republican opposition when they shouldn't have. They did so in hopes of getting a little bi-partisan support that would never come, and to accommodate DINOs like Nelson.

 

That darned Democratic leadership compromising on a bill that a majority of Americans don't favor in the first place. Whatever shall we do with them?

[Mavric]

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.

 

Perhaps you are the one for whom 3 years is "ancient history":

 

From NPR:

"The time has come for action, and we will act," Baucus says, regardless of whether Republican Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Mike Enzi of Wyoming or Olympia Snowe of Maine are on board with a compromise plan.

 

Being involved in the talks and having your ideas included or supporting the outcome are entirely different things.

[Yossarian]

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?

No, no, no. What I was saying is that a point of great frustration for many on the left is that inept Democratic leadership compromised far too much before the legislation was even introduced. While much of the left was clamoring for a single payer universal system like what most real countries have, what was put forward was a giant give-away to the health insurance industry. Single payer was never given any consideration in the futile hope that endorsing what is essentially a Republican solution would get some bi-partisan support. They capitulated before there was ever a fight, and then gave away even more when wheeling and dealing with Senate Republicans like Grassley and Snowe who ultimately voted against it anyway.

 

This is where the Democratic leadership are at their most naive and inept. They think that if they embrace Republican ideas, the Republicans will go along with them, but we've seen time and again that regardless of the issue, Republicans will blindly oppose anything put forward by Democrats (a glaring exception to the norm being when we want to bomb or invade a country). If Democrats adopt a Republican position, Republicans will merely shift their position to something even more ridiculous, and redraw the battle lines. In this environment, Republicans were never going to support anything put forward by this administration, and the Democrats' greatest failure was in compromising before the battle was even joined. Rather than caving as they did, they should have recognized the futility of trying to reach across the aisle. They should have stuck to principles and fought for what the left actually wanted. It might even have been a losing effort thanks to Republican sleeper agents like Nelson, Lieberman and the like, but it would have energized the left for a fight rather than leaving so many frustrated, apathetic and/or disillusioned by a hard fight for what they didn't really want in the first place.

 

What I did not say, though you seem to have interpreted as such, is that only one side was to blame for the bill. This is a failure of the Democratic leadership as much as anyone. Believe me, I think Democrats suck almost as much as the Republicans, and are as guilty as anyone for the problems we have. I generally blame our thoroughly broken and corrupt system for the fundamental problems we have, though. Republican v. Democrat drama is just a distraction. Unfortunately, I don't see anything changing any time soon, so we get to continue operating under the Donkey v. Elephant charade until the country finally crashes and burns. Maybe at least part of whatever reforms after that will be better.

 

 

Yos - I think this post probably answers your patronizing question too, but in the event that it needs to be stated more plainly for you, yes. I'm saying the Democrats foolishly gave away a great deal in the face of anticipated Republican opposition when they shouldn't have. They did so in hopes of getting a little bi-partisan support that would never come, and to accommodate DINOs like Nelson.

 

Nothing patronizing about my question. I just thought you did not know that the Dems could have passed anything they wanted to - including a piece of crap like the ACA - without Republican votes. And they did. Besides, how would they know what they had given up since none of them knew what exactly was in the bill they voted on? And expecting the Republicans to vote on something the Speaker of the House was ignorant of seems a little bit stupid to me.

[Hayseed]

How about....scrap ACA....use the Commerce Clause to stop states and insurance companies from restraining trade......allowing clinics or hospitals to sell their own healthcare plans the same way phone companies sell phone plans.....have them buy group catastrophic coverage insurance plans for all their customers like large corporations buy at the best price anywhere in the world.......have states establish high-risk pools and subsidize the clinical groups according to the level of risk they take on....allow employers to get out of the insurance business by using HSA contributions as their only healthcare benefit or just drop the tax exemption of healthcare altogether and make it a level playing field between employer sponsored plans and privately bought plans....it's not really the rocket science the insurance industry and Progressives try to make it out to be.

[Yossarian]

How about....scrap ACA....use the Commerce Clause to stop states and insurance companies from restraining trade......allowing clinics or hospitals to sell their own healthcare plans the same way phone companies sell phone plans.....have them buy group catastrophic coverage insurance plans for all their customers like large corporations buy at the best price anywhere in the world.......have states establish high-risk pools and subsidize the clinical groups according to the level of risk they take on....allow employers to get out of the insurance business by using HSA contributions as their only healthcare benefit or just drop the tax exemption of healthcare altogether and make it a level playing field between employer sponsored plans and privately bought plans....it's not really the rocket science the insurance industry and Progressives try to make it out to be.

 

But...but...but, that won't allow the Federal Government to control one-sixth of the U.S. economy, and everyone wants that. You know, take it over and make it work like the Department of Education, DHS, or ATF...

[Comish]

bhamHusker, on 03 July 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

 

"the Democrats foolishly gave away a great deal in the face of anticipated Republican opposition when they shouldn't have. They did so in hopes of getting a little bi-partisan support that would never come, and to accommodate DINOs like Nelson."

 

One of the larger elephants in the room is tort reform…….Opps………must be one of those “compromises” the dems gave away to the parasitic pubs in order to advance the ACA…… .