Repealing the ACA under Trump

[JJ Husker]

Well it ain't going to get any better.

Premiums still increasing at double digit pace, and they're age rated so guess what. Deductibles increasing, coverages getting worse, and cost of services increasing.

Rosy f'n picture ehh?

[Redux]

Well it ain't going to get any better.

Premiums still increasing at double digit pace, and they're age rated so guess what. Deductibles increasing, coverages getting worse, and cost of services increasing.

Rosy f'n picture ehh?

Oh it's just beautiful. Land of the free I guess.

[zoogs]

If only we could empower the government to play more of a role in regulating prices.

[Redux]

If only we could empower the government to play more of a role in regulating prices.

No reason the same government that made it mandatory to begin with can't make the companies offer it at affordable rates.

[zoogs]

 

If only we could empower the government to play more of a role in regulating prices.

No reason the same government that made it mandatory to begin with can't make the companies offer it at affordable rates.

 

I agree, Redux. Let's accelerate the move towards single payer. It's far past due for the U.S. to stop lagging so far behind other developed, first-world social democracies in this (and other) areas.

 

The ACA didn't give the government this sort of teeth. But we can get there.

[JJ Husker]

If only we could empower the government to play more of a role in regulating prices.

 

Empowering them wouldn't help and they have no reason to regulate prices.

 

That's pretty much the core of the problem. Our government is an aristocracy. The laws they pass don't really affect them and when they do, they are diametrically opposed to the majority of the people. Regulating or reducing prices may benefit us but all it does for them is piss off their big donors and reduce their kickbacks, favors and donations. They are beholden to lobbies, large corporations and wealthy donors. Doing things that benefit us affect them adversely so, guess what we get.

 

The only hope of the government doing anything would be if they went to single payer. They might do that because they would like being in charge of an industry that large that everyone has to participate in. Everyone knows that there is way more opportunity for graft and to skim from that kind of power. That would be right up their alley and it might actually benefit them and us if they figure they can skim more by being in control of it and we might possibly benefit from the penny pinching actions of some underling. Once they get that kind of power, they would be a little less beholden to individual special interests and could basically screw both the industry and the people at the same time. Any benefit for us would be purely accidental but it could happen I guess.

 

IMO, we need to fix our government before anything meaningful can be accomplished with healthcare.

[zoogs]

I thought single payer was exactly what I was saying by "empowering" them, but maybe I'm not stating it properly.

[JJ Husker]

I thought single payer was exactly what I was saying by "empowering" them, but maybe I'm not stating it properly.

Yeah, I understand you are for single payer, as am I at this point. But I don't think empowering them is the correct term. We have empowered our government plenty and it has got us nowhere good. Now it just needs to get bad enough to where the people (all of them that can finally get past their partisan ways anyway) clamor for their intervention and the little light will kick on in their heads about how they can manipulate it to their advantage and voila. Sorry, it's rainy and I'm cynical today

[zoogs]

That sounds like a really vague "bad government" statement. I thought that giving government the ability (or much more ability) to negotiate prices was the very definition of single payer. It places a single public agency -- the federal government -- in charge of organizing healthcare financing.

 

How is "we've empowered our government plenty and it stinks; we shouldn't keep going down that road" reconciled with "Let's go to single payer"?...

 

Regarding cynicism: it's been fostered, promoted, and taught -- *particularly* by one party. I understand a healthy skepticism, but the history here is clear. Cynicism is politically useful to them because it helps stop progressive policy gains. Even when voters have very antagonistic views to the party, their voting patterns are still tethered to the party's goals thanks to cynicism.

 

Republican Party strategy: you can hate us, but you'll still help keep us in power. Cynicism is a large reason why I think they've been invulnerable and haven't had to account for an egregiously shoddy record.

[JJ Husker]

That sounds like a really vague "bad government" statement. I thought that giving government the ability (or much more ability) to negotiate prices was the very definition of single payer. It places a single public agency -- the federal government -- in charge of organizing healthcare financing.How is "we've empowered our government plenty and it stinks; we shouldn't keep going down that road" reconciled with "Let's go to single payer"?...Regarding cynicism: it's been fostered, promoted, and taught -- *particularly* by one party. I understand a healthy skepticism, but the history here is clear. Cynicism is politically useful to them because it helps stop progressive policy gains. Even when voters have very antagonistic views to the party, their voting patterns are still tethered to the party's goals thanks to cynicism.Republican Party strategy: you can hate us, but you'll still help keep us in power. Cynicism is a large reason why I think they've been invulnerable and haven't had to account for an egregiously shoddy record.

We were interpreting "empower" differently. You meant it as empower them to negotiate prices but I took it as empower our government to do something.

 

And I assure you, my cynicism is completely organic. They've earned every ounce of it. Answer this; how have our elected officials not been empowered to fix healthcare? They've got all the empowerment they need to accomplish it yet they haven't. You can blame it all on one party if you wish but that doesn't explain why the dems ACA was a half-assed effort. Unfortunately my cynicism as detailed above explains extremely well why neither side has really fixed the cost problem. Either side will talk about wanting to do it.....until it can possibly happen, then nothing happens. It's only convenient to blame the other guys. None of them want to upset those they are beholden to. But yeah, they'll pay us lip service every chance they get. Lately it's been easy for the dems to play that game because, you know, those darned repubs. They could've addressed it with the ACA but they didn't. Somehow they were able to get a mandate in there but it's the repubs fault that they couldn't address costs? Bullsh#t. And the repubs are playing the same game now. They could've jammed through some meaningful reforms but we all saw what their grand plan looked like. None of them really want to fix it.

[zoogs]

Hang on. Is "negotiating prices" not doing something? Single payer is literally putting the government in charge. Right?

 

Why hasn't this happened yet? Because we have politicians -- and people -- who have a very difficult time installing policies that let the government do something.

 

If you believe the ACA was a "half-assed" effort, you need to read up on the history of its implementation.

[JJ Husker]

Hang on. Is "negotiating prices" not doing something? Single payer is literally putting the government in charge. Right?Why hasn't this happened yet? Because we have politicians -- and people -- who have a very difficult time installing policies that let the government do something.If you believe the ACA was a "half-assed" effort, you need to read up on the history of its implementation.

Apparently we aren't going totally to agree on this. I do agree that is how single payer would work in a much better system than we have. They would negotiate lower prices, install reasonable limits on what could be charged and pass on some of that savings to us in some manner of tax savings or lower increases. That is why I think we may benefit a little, accidently, from single payer. But those in power will be darned sure to get their's first before we see any crumbs from it.

 

I am pretty well aware of the ACA implementation. But I rely more on what we end up with rather than partisan talking points. It may not have appeared to be half-assed but that is sure as heck what we ended up with. If it wasn't, they would've fixed the biggest problem rather than simply expanding coverage for low income people. Yes that was needed but nothing they did was sustainable without addressing costs. Do you really think that failure is the fault of only one party?

 

I'll admit I'm wrong and eat all the crow in the world when they actually address the cost issues or go to single payer and actually save us some money somewhere. Until then I'll rely on what they actually do, not what they talk about doing if only they could. Those darned repubs. They couldn't stop the mandate but they just wouldn't stand for cost reforms? I don't buy it.

[zoogs]

You don't buy that Republicans wouldn't have gone for single payer in 2010? Are you serious?

[knapplc]

We shouldn't be reinventing the wheel.

 

Every first-world nation - except America - has single-payer healthcare. We're the only major world government who thinks corporations should be in charge of their citizens' health care.

 

This is a mistake. Corporations have less hands-on controls than government. They are purely driven by profit, whereas government is still controlled by the people.

 

It's ludicrous to think otherwise. We must centralize healthcare.

[JJ Husker]

You don't buy that Republicans wouldn't have gone for single payer in 2010? Are you serious?

If you're going to purposely mischaracterize and twist what I say, this won't be a very fruitful conversation. With questions like that, I'm pretty sure I'm being more serious than you are.

 

Please explain how the dems convinced enough repubs to accept the mandate but they just couldn't convince them to go along with fixing any of the cost issues. Hint, there's two choices and neither one has anything to do with single payer. Either the dems didn't need any repubs to pass the ACA or they just didn't attempt any real cost reforms. Thus Half-assed. If you can point me to where the repubs singlehandedly defeated actual attempts at cost reforms in the ACA, I'll listen. And please acknowledge that single payer is not the only avenue available for cost fixes. Cost reforms and single payer are not interchangeable terms. The former can be attempted without the latter.

 

This is not in anyway a defense for the lousy republicans. One of us simply recognizes the realities of what is required to really fix healthcare and how detrimental that effort would be for all elected officials. But you can keep on pretending that it's all on the repubs and that the dems really would if they could. Here's my half-assed analogy. Cost reform in healthcare for politicians is like a pedicure at the expense of having a leg amputated. You would make that trade? Are you serious?