Repealing the ACA under Trump

[QMany]

[knapplc]

[knapplc]

HAHA LOL KEEP WINNING #MAGA!

 

[knapplc]

You won, Republicans! Hooray!

 

 

[NM11046]

Please call your senators - Sasse in particular has recently come out to say he's yet undecided.

[zoogs]

Grotesque. The GOP updates the bill to introduce the following penalty in an attempt to encourage (but not force!) people to buy insurance: https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-gop-updates-health-care-bill-include-6-month-lockout-uninsured-171509672.html

 

"The new bill says that people who have lacked insurance coverage for 63 days or more must wait six months before reentering the marketplace. This change is meant to prevent a “death spiral” of healthy people waiting until they become sick to buy insurance, driving up costs for everyone"

 

Maybe if we punished desperate people trying to save a buck more by denying them access to healthcare for avoiding buying insurance?

 

At least it's not a mandate! #smallgovernment?

[BigRedBuster]

Earlier today I heard a Republican talking head explain this as......"We are not kicking people off of Medicaid. If you are on Medicaid now, you are grandfathered in. These people that some are saying are going to be without healthcare are in the future".

 

WTF?????

 

Like that is an acceptable argument as to why we should support this bill?

[zoogs]

Please call your senators - Sasse in particular has recently come out to say he's yet undecided.

 

Yes, please call Sasse, Nebraskans. Time to hold him to this whole anti-Trump affectation he's got going on.

 

I'm not optimistic. He seemed to be downplaying the scope of the deal -- excusing the process by arguing that it's not 'full repeal' but a minor adjustment targeted at Medicaid.

 

"These people that some are saying are going to be without healthcare are in the future".

 

Jeezus. At least they're not even pretending to not be this way. Are Future People really people, though? Like, really really people? I always thought so. But the whole futureness of it all makes me reconsider.

[BigRedBuster]

Grotesque. The GOP updates the bill to introduce the following penalty in an attempt to encourage (but not force!) people to buy insurance: https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-gop-updates-health-care-bill-include-6-month-lockout-uninsured-171509672.html

 

"The new bill says that people who have lacked insurance coverage for 63 days or more must wait six months before reentering the marketplace. This change is meant to prevent a “death spiral” of healthy people waiting until they become sick to buy insurance, driving up costs for everyone"

 

Maybe if we punished desperate people trying to save a buck more by denying them access to healthcare for avoiding buying insurance?

 

At least it's not a mandate! #smallgovernment?

 

Actually, the problem they describe is a real problem with financing healthcare.

 

However, their way of fixing the problem is pretty pathetic.

[zoogs]

Do you mean the lack of people buying insurance? Yes, I absolutely agree -- it's why the mandate makes enormous sense to me. You need to have people buying. You can't just skip out until you get sick and then need the insurance.

 

It's the way they propose to do this that's just cruel. They make a big deal about the freedom of not having a 'mandate', but how free are you if the penalty for not buying insurance is outright denial? Especially when we all know people are going to try not buying and getting away with it. The price exacted from them will be terrible, unless they're lucky. And then our answer is going to be what? That they deserved it?

 

You're not giving people a real choice. Frankly, you're dangling a carrot over the shark's pit and encouraging people to put themselves at risk. And what of the people who succeed in getting away with it? They're not paying into the system at all.

[Red Five]

HAHA LOL KEEP WINNING #MAGA!

 

 

 

Good lord. Having no mandate (or not a stiff penalty) will cause the healthy people to choose not to be insured, thus making the individual population to be even more high cost than it is now. And in turn, premiums will skyrocket because you won't have the healthy people paying premiums helping to "subsidize" the sicker people.

[JJ Husker]

Grotesque. The GOP updates the bill to introduce the following penalty in an attempt to encourage (but not force!) people to buy insurance: https://www.yahoo.com/news/senate-gop-updates-health-care-bill-include-6-month-lockout-uninsured-171509672.html

 

"The new bill says that people who have lacked insurance coverage for 63 days or more must wait six months before reentering the marketplace. This change is meant to prevent a “death spiral” of healthy people waiting until they become sick to buy insurance, driving up costs for everyone"

 

Maybe if we punished desperate people trying to save a buck more by denying them access to healthcare for avoiding buying insurance?

 

At least it's not a mandate! #smallgovernment?

 

This bill is complete trash but let's not hammer them for maybe the one item in it that makes some sense.

Previous to this change, they had no mandate for coverage. It simply said people could buy into a plan anytime they wanted.

We both know that won't work. The whole concept of insurance doesn't work if people can wait to begin paying premiums until they are actually going to use it.

Quite disappointed that you chose to portray this measure as you did in the bolded.

 

I agree that going about it this way is misguided. It would be better just to have the mandate but we both know these repubs aren't going to allow a government mandate to purchase insurance in their bill. But at least they adopted some sort of punishment for not having any.

 

The good news is, there's no way in hell this thing can pass....is there?

[BigRedBuster]

Do you mean the lack of people buying insurance? Yes, I absolutely agree -- it's why the mandate makes enormous sense to me. You need to have people buying. You can't just skip out until you get sick and then need the insurance.

 

It's the way they propose to do this that's just cruel. They make a big deal about the freedom of not having a 'mandate', but how free are you if the penalty for not buying insurance is outright denial? Especially when we all know people are going to try not buying and getting away with it. The price exacted from them will be terrible, unless they're lucky. And then our answer is going to be what? That they deserved it?

 

You're not giving people a real choice. Frankly, you're dangling a carrot over the shark's pit and encouraging people to put themselves at risk. And what of the people who succeed in getting away with it? They're not paying into the system at all.

As of right now, I know people who don't buy coverage because they know they can buy it if they get sick. I know specifically one who all of a sudden went out and bought a policy right when his wife started having some major health problems.

[JJ Husker]

That's the other problem with free market solutions for healthcare. For the free market to actually work, we would have to be willing to deny coverage and care to people who have elected to not participate. Sorry you dumbass repubs but that isn't an option.

[zoogs]

ED, I replied in greater detail outlining my objection to this system.

Why can't we just not have a conniption over the concept of a government mandate? The Republicans are so "Big Government" averse they'd rather institute a cruel punishment. This isn't preservation of choice, not really -- you can "choose", but if you choose the wrong way we're going to punish you for it. How else do you call a scenario where someone opts to exercise that hard-fought-for Republican freedom not to buy health insurance, then they get sick, and then they're barred from re-entering the marketplace for six months by Republican policy?

 

There's not only a way in hell, there's a way in the real world this thing can pass. We're on its doorstep.