Repealing the ACA under Trump

[zoogs]

This is why you can't let people get away with saying things that sound nice (like "I also want to get rid of poverty" or "it all starts with education") and then deciding that you agree with these guys in principle.

 

That kind of confidence is why I expect some people are actually stunned that the GOP plan involves the possibility of less people being insured. They genuinely figured these sweet-talking, smart-sounding guys were gonna come up with something good.

 

Tom Price isn't just some administration spokesman. He's had the ACA in his sights for a long time.

[Red Five]

Sigh...

 

[NM11046]

Whack job.

[Danny Bateman]

This is why you can't let people get away with saying things that sound nice (like "I also want to get rid of poverty" or "it all starts with education") and then deciding that you agree with these guys in principle.

 

That kind of confidence is why I expect some people are actually stunned that the GOP plan involves the possibility of less people being insured. They genuinely figured these sweet-talking, smart-sounding guys were gonna come up with something good.

 

Tom Price isn't just some administration spokesman. He's had the ACA in his sights for a long time.

 

My post was originally part snarky drive-by because Price's quotes are so absurd. But, because I care about this topic very much, and because it's so important for people to understand it as well asa they can...

 

You're absolutely right. Todd n Tyler were hitting on a similar vein when I was listening to them this morning - someone emailed them and complained that anyone anywhere to the right of them (they're pretty big lefties) was some heartless monster that just wanted to rip healthcare away from people, obviously being a bit hyperbolic.

 

Their response: No, but at some point, you're complicit too. If you continually vote for these people, who then turn around and push for these policies and this legislation, it IS on you to some degree, even if you yourself feel differently.

 

FWIW: Price's quotes are completely asinine. Those things aren't at all what he believes, and aren't at all what this bill he's so heavily touting attempts to do. He's describing the opposite of what the bill aims to do:

 

He doesn't want to strengthen Medicaid. The bill LITERALLY calls for a Medicaid freeze, huge funding cuts, and a push to transition people off of Medicaid en route to winding it down.

 

He doesn't want to make sure every American has coverage. He wants to kick 24M (7.5% of the population) OFF of their coverage, with fantastic cost-saving alternatives of paying very little for useless coverage or not buying any whatsoever & getting hammered with a 30% premium increase when you do buy some.

 

It's mind blowing to me. He's describing exactly the opposite of the goals of his bill, and he knows it. What nerve.

[TGHusker]

Ryan may think he has enough votes with changes:

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/house-to-vote-thursday-on-gop-obamacare-replacement-236168

[NM11046]

Ryan may think he has enough votes with changes:

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/house-to-vote-thursday-on-gop-obamacare-replacement-236168

I thought we just needed on more "no" and we're looking to AK to get it ...

[TGHusker]

 

Ryan may think he has enough votes with changes:

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/house-to-vote-thursday-on-gop-obamacare-replacement-236168

I thought we just needed on more "no" and we're looking to AK to get it ...

 

NM - I must be too dense today, you point flew right over me - what do you mean?

[NM11046]

You're not dense - I'm totally wiped out and this day in our administration put me over the edge. But this: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/susan-collins-no-gop-health-bill.html

[Danny Bateman]

From the story you posted, TGH.

 

Rep. Robert Aderholt was among a bloc of conservatives threatening to tank the Republican health care plan when President Donald Trump summoned him to the White House on Friday.

 

At a meeting with more than a dozen other lawmakers wary of the legislation, Aderholt told Trump he was worried that elderly Americans would be hit with huge premium increases. But Trump prevailed on him, looking Aderholt in the eye and promising: "These are my people and I will not let them down. We will fix this for them."

Aderholt switched his vote in favor right then and there.

 

Oh, how cute. He seems to be under the impression that POTUS is not a rampant serial liar. Either that, or he's got no spine, and he's willing to roll over and play ignorant and hope everything somehow turns out alright the first time someone calls his bluff.

 

If we're going to survive the Trump administration without the country becoming a complete, raging dumpster fire, we're going to need people of principle to stand up and stand for something.

 

Right now, I see a lot of people sitting down and shutting up and looking the other way because it's the politically expedient thing to do.

 

So, all it takes for this guy to cave is for the bill to become slightly more conservative? The two changes the article mentions:

 

• Require some Medicaid enrollees to seek work or education in order to qualify for the program
• The other would allow states to transform their Medicaid programs into a block grant, another conservative idea meant to rein in costs and let states run the program.

Block grants = less care. It caps the amount the federal government gives for Medicaid, instead of the open-ended commitment they have to states at the moment, but it ultimately means less care for patients in those states.

 

I feel similarly about requiring Medicaid enrollees to work as I do drug testing welfare recipients. It's awful funny where "small government" conservatives draw the line in the sand about government overreach.

 

Neither of those additions makes this bill any better. It's a terrible healthcare bill for THE PEOPLE - I could give two licks how Paul Ryan or Mitch McConnell or all their buddies on the hill feel about it.

[Making Chimichangas]

You're not dense - I'm totally wiped out and this day in our administration put me over the edge. But this: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/susan-collins-no-gop-health-bill.html

 

From NM11046's link:

 

Senator Rand Paul has already said he won’t vote for AHCA, and Senators Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton, and Mike Lee have been railing against the bill, though they haven’t said definitively that they won’t support it. They say they oppose the bill because it isn’t conservative enough, arguing that the government’s role in the health-insurance market should be drastically reduced. House Speaker Paul Ryan and the Trump administration have even argued that getting more people covered was never the goal.

 

​Didn't Trump during his campaign claim that they were going to cover more people, for less money? I could've sworn I heard him say that.

 

But, to the point of Cruz and other Republicans opposing this bill...

 

Am I the only one who finds it incredibly ironic that Republican members of Congress all have relatively inexpensive health insurance, subsidized upwards of 70% by the government...

 

http://the federal government provides a subsidy equivalent to 72 percent of the weighted average of all FEHBP premiums.

 

...yet completely oppose the government making sure common every day citizens have similar access to affordable health care?

 

Question for those of you who are lucky enough to work for a company that offers health care: Does you company cover 70% or more? I don't know for sure but I'm betting the answer is no.

[zoogs]

There's a point to be made there, though: it's easy to feel good about eliminating largess when the services being eliminated are not something you'll personally feel at all. When healthcare is great, "problems" with it are abstract, and it's easy to believe garbage like "The ACA is spiraling out of control for everybody else". Whether coverage conditions improve or not really isn't felt by these people, so if they don't want to truly care about it, they're quite free to.

 

Similarly, the idea that Trump might ever under any circumstance have to cut back on luxury and leisure is clearly completely foreign to him. Yet, who needs the National Endowment for the Arts, right?

[BigRedBuster]

We pay 100% of the employees premium.

 

If the employee wants family coverage, they pay the difference between single and family coverage.

 

Same with my wife's company.

[NM11046]

A EXCELLENT overview that points out some positives and negatives and alternatives as to what should be done with healthcare. I thought this was well written, full of content but not overly complicated. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/03/17/should-healthy-people-have-to-pay-for-chronic-illnesses/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.393b87431f6b

[QMany]

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/843819426583662592

[zoogs]

We're a backsliding country with policy-makers unfit for the greatness of American enterprise and innovation.

 

Shame.

 

We should be world leaders in this aspect. We have the capability more than anybody else. Yet here we are. Determined to strive towards backwardness.