A man you can bait with a Tweet

[commando]

 

And later that night...

 

so faux news is his tool for telling people they are fired now?

[QMany]

[BigRedBuster]

This is worrisome. The ACA being on track to work well is of course part of the reason why they couldn't get the votes.

 

There is much incentive to sabotage the ACA and destroy it.

To your first paragraph. ......ummm....no.

[commando]

[Moiraine]

 

This is worrisome. The ACA being on track to work well is of course part of the reason why they couldn't get the votes.

 

There is much incentive to sabotage the ACA and destroy it.

To your first paragraph. ......ummm....no.

Can both of you provide evidence that is non-anecdotal?

 

I've heard the rates aren't increasing at a faster rate than they would have increased without Obamacare. I've also heard that at least one insurance company purposely sabotaged things last year to try to kill it faster. But I want to see both arguments without looking any of it up myself

 

 

Edit: this seems to be a pretty good article

 

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN16W00V

 

Seems most of the insurers left because they had to so there were certainly problems. But I feel like the GOP and Democrats should have tried to patch things up and improve them rather than the GOP taking a hatchet to it. The GOP plan to take away the mandate was pure stupidity. We can't have universal health care if everyone isn't paying into it.

 

I think they should have looked into (but the GOP would obviously be against it) finding a way to get some funding from drug companies that are overcharging in the U.S. After all, more people insured means they can sell more drugs. They are benefiting from this and still ripping people off.

[zoogs]

I'm not saying the ACA is an ideal permanent solution, and it was never intended to be. But let's not downplay its accomplishments either. Many millions of Americans are on insurance and can access better care because of it. Premiums were expected to stabilize and enrollment on track to improve. One of the larger problems facing it were GOP-controlled states refusing Medicaid expansion, without which it would have achieved even further gains.

 

If it were truly on the verge of collapse, which it is not, or if it were really a disaster, which it is not, then some alternative plan (however terrible) could have been pushed through by a party controlling so much of the federal government.

 

In general, a good way to enact terrible, self-serving change is to destroy confidence in the existing system first. I.e, "public schools are AWFUL, clearly we must go the Betsy DeVos route."

[Danny Bateman]

If nothing else, we can thank the ACA for permanently shifting the goalposts on how healthcare is perceived in our country.

 

Perhaps the strictly market-based approach conservatives champion would be more popular pre-ACA. They've certainly enjoyed good electoral success organizing around it for nearly a decade.

 

But the Frankenstein bill they just proposed got 17% approval. It was loathed, even by Trump supporters. They break from him on this bill, in part because of what he said he would achieve when he was campaigning.

 

A more conservative approach would further gut Medicaid and regulations like children staying on their parent's plan until they are 26 or protection of those with pre-existing conditions en route to taking healthcare away from more Americans. We stood up as a nation and said that wasn't acceptable. Any solution now needs to both drive down costs and work to offer insurance for all of us.

 

That Americans now largely perceive healthcare as a right of our citizens is largely thanks to the ACA. Thanks Obama!

[BigRedBuster]

The ACA has accomplished insuring more people, helped people with pre-existing conditions....etc. With that, it has accomplished something important. I never have said the ACA is 100% bad or horrible or close to blowing up like the Republicans are trying to say.

 

However, the ACA didn't even try to accomplish the biggest problem in American healthcare. Controlling costs.

 

At this point, neither side is even touching the subject. Sure, both will mention it. ACA people claim having more people pay in, reduces the cost for the majority of Americans. ACHA people claim allowing people to purchase across state lines will allow more competition which could lower rates.

 

However, what NEITHER one does is attack the costs at the provider level. THAT is where the problem is and neither providers nor insurance companies have a real motivation to change that with any system we have seriously heard discussed from either side.

 

So....the comment in the above post I responded to was...."The ACA being on track to work well" It's not....without major changes.

 

Americans still pay way too much for health care and that keeps going up. OK....premiums aren't going up as fast as before....whoopteee doooo..... I was with a group of friends on Friday. We know a family that claimed when they quoted insurance through the exchange, it was $2400 per month (2 parents and 3 college age kids). We didn't believe it...so, we went and got a quote.....they were correct.

 

THAT is way out of line.

[NM11046]

And Donald got us back on track with this morning's tweet. I didn't realize Mr. Kelly was patrolling the border, but he's doing a bang up job.

 

[funhusker]

^^^bracing everyone for when the wall doesn't get built....

[knapplc]

BRB, as a man who is staunchly against government regulations, how do you propose Obamacare or any replacement law addresses the rampant costs of our healthcare system? Wouldn't any bill that directly addresses costs necessarily entail greater regulations?

[BigRedBuster]

BRB, as a man who is staunchly against government regulations, how do you propose Obamacare or any replacement law addresses the rampant costs of our healthcare system? Wouldn't any bill that directly addresses costs necessarily entail greater regulations?

 

 

First off, the bolded is not an accurate description of my views.

 

I understand need for regulation. Even when developing a pro business environment, some regulation is needed to form a stable and healthy market place. When that happens, it's a benefit to both the consumer and producer of goods and services.

 

My problems with regulations are when they are unreasonable or put in place with no regard for if the regulation makes sense or actually helps. On the flip side, I have a real problem with people who claim all regulations are bad.

 

I had a conversation with our local hospital administrator the other day. I expressed my frustration in all of this and he came up with a couple excuses. I point blank told him that if facility administrators and providers don't get on board with a solution to control costs, ultimately we will end up with a single payer plan and it will be FORCED on them what they are paid. He obviously didn't like that comment.

 

There is a big part of me that doesn't like a single player plan. However, I'm becoming more and more open to it if the powers in Washington and the market place do not come up with a solution to control costs.

[Danny Bateman]

 

BRB, as a man who is staunchly against government regulations, how do you propose Obamacare or any replacement law addresses the rampant costs of our healthcare system? Wouldn't any bill that directly addresses costs necessarily entail greater regulations?

 

 

First off, the bolded is not an accurate description of my views.

 

I understand need for regulation. Even when developing a pro business environment, some regulation is needed to form a stable and healthy market place. When that happens, it's a benefit to both the consumer and producer of goods and services.

 

My problems with regulations are when they are unreasonable or put in place with no regard for if the regulation makes sense or actually helps. On the flip side, I have a real problem with people who claim all regulations are bad.

 

I had a conversation with our local hospital administrator the other day. I expressed my frustration in all of this and he came up with a couple excuses. I point blank told him that if facility administrators and providers don't get on board with a solution to control costs, ultimately we will end up with a single payer plan and it will be FORCED on them what they are paid. He obviously didn't like that comment.

 

There is a big part of me that doesn't like a single player plan. However, I'm becoming more and more open to it if the powers in Washington and the market place do not come up with a solution to control costs.

 

 

The problem with controlling costs with most market-based solutions is that it necessarily entails stripping a bunch of people of their healthcare when they try to dismantle Medicaid, removing pre-existing conditions protection and defunding agencies like Planned Parenthood.

 

As much as Repubs talk about wanting to control costs, they're not willing to pay the political price of doing the above. They'd get raked over the coals rather badly.

 

We've seen the result when they half-ass it and throw together something like the AHCA - millions lose insurance but no notable reduction in premiums.

 

I'm glad you're open to more gov't intervention - I think we're going to need it.

[zoogs]

I feel like you just need to get a little dig in at the ACA every time it's brought up -- which is fine. Healthcare is complicated, and the ACA was always an incomplete and compromise "bridge" solution. And we agree that it made significant improvements globally, while also agreeing there are areas for serious improvement.

 

My larger point was that the best way to foist horrendous and irresponsible solutions upon us is to make sure the status quo is terrible for people.

 

Hence the pulling of enrollment ads, etc. And the branding war. Obamacare is hardly government-supplied universal health care. Get people to buy into that branding, then destroy it, then unleash the Freedom Caucus dream.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

BRB, as a man who is staunchly against government regulations, how do you propose Obamacare or any replacement law addresses the rampant costs of our healthcare system? Wouldn't any bill that directly addresses costs necessarily entail greater regulations?

 

 

First off, the bolded is not an accurate description of my views.

 

I understand need for regulation. Even when developing a pro business environment, some regulation is needed to form a stable and healthy market place. When that happens, it's a benefit to both the consumer and producer of goods and services.

 

My problems with regulations are when they are unreasonable or put in place with no regard for if the regulation makes sense or actually helps. On the flip side, I have a real problem with people who claim all regulations are bad.

 

I had a conversation with our local hospital administrator the other day. I expressed my frustration in all of this and he came up with a couple excuses. I point blank told him that if facility administrators and providers don't get on board with a solution to control costs, ultimately we will end up with a single payer plan and it will be FORCED on them what they are paid. He obviously didn't like that comment.

 

There is a big part of me that doesn't like a single player plan. However, I'm becoming more and more open to it if the powers in Washington and the market place do not come up with a solution to control costs.

 

 

The problem with controlling costs with most market-based solutions is that it necessarily entails stripping a bunch of people of their healthcare when they try to dismantle Medicaid, removing pre-existing conditions protection and defunding agencies like Planned Parenthood.

 

As much as Repubs talk about wanting to control costs, they're not willing to pay the political price of doing the above. They'd get raked over the coals rather badly.

 

We've seen the result when they half-ass it and throw together something like the AHCA - millions lose insurance but no notable reduction in premiums.

 

I'm glad you're open to more gov't intervention - I think we're going to need it.

 

NO.....

 

This is exactly why this never gets fixed.

I'm not talking about fixing costs at the insurance level. I'm talking about fixing costs at the provider level. A knee replacement in the US should not cost $100,000 when the same procedure costs $15,000 somewhere else. That has absolutely nothing to do with pre-existing conditions, dismantling medicaid.....etc.

 

If we do what we need to do, those pre-existing conditions and medicaid become much less of an issue because they cost much less.