Dems Rebuild

[zoogs]

I feel like there's a boatload of opposition party talking points there. Were we or were we not in a fiscal crisis that we've steadily navigated out of since 2008? Was the economy fine as was, and to what extent did the ACA hinder it? In what sense did Obama choose the ACA over the stimulus you said he also enacted?

 

I don't think these are separate issues. Obstruction is perfectly valid in some instances; if Obama had started herding minorities into concentration camps, for example. The validity of GOP obstruction is completely determined by the nature of their cause.

 

To circle back to the party talking points comment and how this is all related, the Republicans have been very unusual, even wantonly damaging in their obstruction over the past six years. This has required a justification. Hence, all of the standard talking points which are now being repeated. The one serves the other; it's a useful cycle.

[TGHusker]

Zoogs, read my post slowly this time without a preconceived idea that I'm repeating repub talking points. You are misreading me if you think I'm justifying repub obstructionism. I'm not. They were/are wrong for it. (emphasis since I said this above also - but maybe not in big enough letters!) I'm saying the work on the economy should have come before the ACA. I don't see the ACA as a economy boasting idea. Something needed to be done for healthcare but the more immediate need was the economy. ACA does place more of a regulatory burden on businesses, esp small business (witness all of the private doc offices now a part of a larger group or under the umbrella of a hospital now). In the time of economic crisis we don't need extra burdens placed on business.

 

How did Obama choose the ACA over stimulus you ask?? It was the first major legislation that he passed through congress before he had the stimulus all figured out. There was concern that he spent his political capital on it before working wt Congress on stimulus issues.

[zoogs]

Well, for starters, "Obama overreach" is a heavy talking point. "He refused to cooperate" is another, and "He rammed through the ACA with his supermajority" is another. "Stimulus disaster" is another. And "We needed to keep the healthcare status quo because the economy was not in good times" -- I'll admit this is the first I've heard of that one.

 

My point is not that all criticisms of the above are invalid, it's that that these attack lines were all developed and used as justifications for the obstruction that ensued. It's hard to separate the two.

 

I mean, from my perspective, Obama both navigated the post-crisis recovery and passed the ACA; neither without significant compromising. But in the end, we recovered and we finally took a step towards universal healthcare.

 

Ah, "work with Congress" is another one. I think we both know the working definition of that term.

[Moiraine]

It will never fail to amuse me hearing that Obama wasn't good enough with the economy. Maybe if he had caused the problem it would make more sense.

[Danny Bateman]

I'm not saying anything about this issue and the voters is logical.

 

The issue is though, one hell of a lot of voters got notices that their premiums are going through the roof right before the election. I firmly believe that played a part in her losing. She was viewed as the one who would keep it in tact and Trump was viewed as the one who would repeal or make major changes.

 

And...nowhere did I ever say this was the ACA Obama wanted. It's a horrible bill and the Republicans never have actually proposed anything better.

 

Millions of Americans now have health care. That's a major plus for the bill. Besides that....well........

 

 

As somebody who is going to be a PT in a few years, all of this stuff is pretty close to my own heart. I'm going to have to use it very soon. I have no idea how applicable what I'm learning now about coding and billing by the time I practice. Uncertainty sucks. Regardless, these are my thoughts:

 

I'll definitely agree the system is complicated and hard to understand. This is loosely related to you brining up premiums-- I remember seeing a tweet from Obama's former head speech writer. He said he had recently spoken with a woman who was absolutely in tears because the news abut premium increases. Turns out, she didn't know how to use the system to apply for subsidies and when she went ahead and did that, her premium actually decreased by 1%.

 

So, I think part of the problem is the insurance system is so complex and convoluted that people end up paying more than they need to. But that's obviously not all of it.

 

The three main metrics we use to gauge healthcare insurance success: Number of people covered, quality of coverage, and cost.

 

The ACA did a GREAT job expanding coverage. It did so by expanding aid to our poorest citizens and eliminating the pre-existing conditions exclusions, as well as the individual mandate. It also had some important provisions to improve quality of coverage. Costs are obviously the Achilles' heel.

 

I guess I'm still bitter at the Republicans for not supporting the best chance we've had at substantially improving our healthcare for everyone AND making the system more sustainable for the future. I think healthcare is an integral part of quality of life, and they chose to sit on the sidelines because it wasn't their team. It'd be analogous to the Dems sitting around and obstructing if the GOP tried to reform the tax code this go around. I'm probably not going to like it if they do, because they're probably raise rates on the middle class and give big breaks to the top. But a simpler tax code would be a good thing-- rates for specific brackets could be addressed later. I wouldn't actively root of the Dems to obstruct in that situation, even though they likely won't have the numbers to do so anyway.

 

Lastly, you're not wrong about them having no replacement. Apparently they've got multiple proposals floating around out there, from Ted Cruz's to Paul Ryan's to this Price fellow's (the guy who Trump appointed to as Sec of HHS). Price is an orthopedic surgeon, so he's at least got relevant experience in the medical field... though I'd have rather had a health policy wonk draw up a plan. Anyway, from what I read of Price's plan... let's just say I'm not a fan.

[Danny Bateman]

TGH, I don't really get your point about the economy either. I mean, yeah, our GDP growth could be better. But he dug us out of the biggest hole we've been in since the Great Depression. That is no small feat in and of itself. Lesser plans may not have accomplished that. Imagine if we'd gone belly up?

One of my favorite talking points on the matter, as long as we're on the subject, is how we're in the "slowest economic recovery ever" or some such nonsense. I can't even remember how it goes. Kind of reeks of hubris, whatever it is.

Anyway, our GDP could get better. It's probably going to increase under Trump. I'm not even sure that if he tries to revert to large coal and oil production, it wouldn't wind up being a wasteful economic exercise, given the status of those fuels worldwide right now. I hope that he does to ignore renewables in favor of fossil fuels. Obama could've jacked up his GDP if he slashed regulations and went full bore into something like fracking. But he didn't want to do those things because he thought slashing regulations would be risky, and fracking would be bad for the environment. I applaud the long-term focus of his approach.

[knapplc]

Zoogs, read my post slowly this time without a preconceived idea that I'm repeating repub talking points.

You post 17 Republican talking points per day. Every day. You post the rankest nonsense couched in the nicest possible language. It's an ongoing pattern, so much so that it seems as though you're either one of those paid shills we hear about or you're brainwashed.

 

And then you say you're being misread.

 

....?

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

I'm not saying anything about this issue and the voters is logical.

 

The issue is though, one hell of a lot of voters got notices that their premiums are going through the roof right before the election. I firmly believe that played a part in her losing. She was viewed as the one who would keep it in tact and Trump was viewed as the one who would repeal or make major changes.

 

And...nowhere did I ever say this was the ACA Obama wanted. It's a horrible bill and the Republicans never have actually proposed anything better.

 

Millions of Americans now have health care. That's a major plus for the bill. Besides that....well........

 

 

As somebody who is going to be a PT in a few years, all of this stuff is pretty close to my own heart. I'm going to have to use it very soon. I have no idea how applicable what I'm learning now about coding and billing by the time I practice. Uncertainty sucks. Regardless, these are my thoughts:

 

I'll definitely agree the system is complicated and hard to understand. This is loosely related to you brining up premiums-- I remember seeing a tweet from Obama's former head speech writer. He said he had recently spoken with a woman who was absolutely in tears because the news abut premium increases. Turns out, she didn't know how to use the system to apply for subsidies and when she went ahead and did that, her premium actually decreased by 1%.

 

So, I think part of the problem is the insurance system is so complex and convoluted that people end up paying more than they need to. But that's obviously not all of it.

 

The three main metrics we use to gauge healthcare insurance success: Number of people covered, quality of coverage, and cost.

 

The ACA did a GREAT job expanding coverage. It did so by expanding aid to our poorest citizens and eliminating the pre-existing conditions exclusions, as well as the individual mandate. It also had some important provisions to improve quality of coverage. Costs are obviously the Achilles' heel.

 

I guess I'm still bitter at the Republicans for not supporting the best chance we've had at substantially improving our healthcare for everyone AND making the system more sustainable for the future. I think healthcare is an integral part of quality of life, and they chose to sit on the sidelines because it wasn't their team. It'd be analogous to the Dems sitting around and obstructing if the GOP tried to reform the tax code this go around. I'm probably not going to like it if they do, because they're probably raise rates on the middle class and give big breaks to the top. But a simpler tax code would be a good thing-- rates for specific brackets could be addressed later. I wouldn't actively root of the Dems to obstruct in that situation, even though they likely won't have the numbers to do so anyway.

 

Lastly, you're not wrong about them having no replacement. Apparently they've got multiple proposals floating around out there, from Ted Cruz's to Paul Ryan's to this Price fellow's (the guy who Trump appointed to as Sec of HHS). Price is an orthopedic surgeon, so he's at least got relevant experience in the medical field... though I'd have rather had a health policy wonk draw up a plan. Anyway, from what I read of Price's plan... let's just say I'm not a fan.

 

The bolded can not be stated loud enough and this isn't just in premiums. The bill is an abomination because of this issue. Sure, it gave access to millions of people. I'm all for that. It helped people with preexisting conditions. I'm all for that.

 

But, we have to be able to pay for it.

Also, this is what the public all sees. The total BS that many companies have to go through to comply with it is ridiculous. It was extremely poorly thought out by people who obviously don't work within the real world.

 

One of the biggest problems with the prior health care system and insurance companies as it pertains to cost is the mountains of paperwork doctors offices and hospitals had to go through. This costs one hell of a lot of money, time and effort. This bill put another mountain of paperwork on top of it all.

 

So...yes....great....more people have health care. But, it's unsustainable.

[Danny Bateman]

The bill had a chance to be sustainable. That is my point. Instead, tribalism from a bunch of smug Republicans doomed it. They didn't help make the bill into something more sustainable when it was being created, and they didn't help fix it thereafter when everyone realized it had problems that needed addressed. Ironically, they were the ones that pushed to turn it into what it is today-- a plan very similar to one influential Republicans proposed in the early 90s when Bill Clinton tried to reform healthcare. Lots of them stood behind that biill-- Chafee, Dole, Grassley, Orrin Hatch.

 

I know that costs are the problem. Having the government be able to negotiate drug prices for all of us or offer a low-cost option for folks to increase competition would've helped. I guess I'm just a bit bitter on this whole deal. I really don't see much of anything to admire in the GOP right now. The fact they've decided that high-fiving each other and droning on about "repeal and replace" is more important than proposing ways to try and fix what could've been a great bill that helped millions of people with something as vital as healthcare.

 

One of my ethical imperatives as a PT is supporting universal healthcare because I want everyone to get the care they need. I support the ACA because it was a major step in that direction, and frankly I don't have too much of a choice because it's the system I've got to work within right now. It just bums me out to see unrelenting partisanship take priority over helping people.

 

The thing you touched on about paperwork is/was a real problem. More and more healthcare is moving rapidly towards electronic storage of everything record related, but obviously, you still have to fill out a lot of forms for insurance, when you arrive for an appointment, etc. The issue with making that more efficient is it is a large sector of healthcare jobs. Even if you convince people it will make the system more efficient and effective by eliminating a lot of that, you have to convince a ton of people they need to find another job. Same problem with trying to suck the massive costs out of healthcare itself-- getting the cost of our healthcare system down means convincing a ton of doctors to take a pay cut. And they'll have lobbyists fighting for them-- it's enough to make your head spin.

 

But I digress...

 

Here's the proposal from Trump's HHS security to replace the ACA. It's pretty dense-- 242 pages-- so I'll let you peruse it on your own, or find an outlet you trust to break it down for you. I read Vox's summary and I'll continue to read over it on my own. It is a legitimate plan to replace the ACA, but like I said, from what i know so far I am not a fan.

[knapplc]

Either: 1) The Democrats learned nothing from Hillary's defeat due to unlikeability/unpopularity, or 2) Pelosi knows where everyone's bodies are buried. She's an ineffective and uninspiring leader, and this does not bode well for the Democrats to rebuild and recover from 2016.

 

[Danny Bateman]

How to beat Trump

 

Worth a read. It echoes what I found some time ago, which suggests the best way to beat Trump is the same way Berlusconi was beaten in Italy-- ignore the histrionics, ridiculous behavior and scandal du jour and focus on why his policy sucks.

[TGHusker]

 

Zoogs, read my post slowly this time without a preconceived idea that I'm repeating repub talking points.

You post 17 Republican talking points per day. Every day. You post the rankest nonsense couched in the nicest possible language. It's an ongoing pattern, so much so that it seems as though you're either one of those paid shills we hear about or you're brainwashed.

 

And then you say you're being misread.

 

....?

 

 

 

Knapp, this post is uncalled for and is opposite our private discussion we had a few short weeks ago. Have I not been critical of Trump & the obstructionist repubs (including in the posts above) many times? That is not Repub talking points. I've never once seen you calling Dude or Zoogs a shrill or brainwashed or other left of center/Democrat supporters in the same way for often presenting their views - views that could be construed as Dem talking points. I may disagree with them on issues, but I respect their view points & often learn from them and at least get understanding of their perspectives. But let one of us who are right of center state an opinion that is opposite yours, you go off the deep end when we don't eventually bend your direction. That is the arrogance on the highest level - and frankly childish. I've never called you out publicly until now. I've always respected your posts and I've told you so privately, have told you I've moderated due to your posts and others (learning from each other.)

 

I have also apologized publicly or admitted I was wrong several times when something I posted was pointed out to be incorrect in fact & not just a difference of opinion. My telling Zoogs to read my post slowly wasn't an attack on him, it was to point out that I was indeed calling the repubs to task for being obstructionists. Yes, my opinions may sound more like 'repub talking points' just because I'm more conservative. Zoogs, yours and others will sound more like Dem talking points because of their leanings. But I don't accuse them as blinded followers, brainwashed, or a shrill. Frankly when you respond like this (which has occurred more than a couple of times), you come across as an old bitter, resentful man who has to have his way. It isn't your job to drive off every contrary view off of HB & make this a left of center only forum.

 

Guard your heart. We are just trying to get through life the best we can with the info we have. Each person has a right to an opinion and the right to express it. I see HB more as a learning opportunity than a place for put downs. I will continue to post conservative perspective articles and opinions because that is who I am & I am willing to learn from others who have different perspectives. I will harbor no hard feelings and forgive you for the uncalled for attack & I wish you nothing but goodwill. I want my heart to be right before you and God - even if I don't know you personally - but I would say the same thing if I met you in person, which I hope some day will occur.

[knapplc]

I would take all of that to heart IF you weren't constantly posting Republican talking points. Stuff that's easy to fact-check, but isn't. Yes, you've apologized for posting incorrect info on more than one occasion - but you continue to do it over and over and over. Stop apologizing - check your facts!

 

Now, I understand how someone telling you that could seem like an attack. I understand that you think I'm a liberal. Neither is true, which is what makes the "bitter resentful old man who has to have his way" comment, and the allegation that I'm trying to drive people off, so unfortunate.

[TGHusker]

How to beat Trump

 

Worth a read. It echoes what I found some time ago, which suggests the best way to beat Trump is the same way Berlusconi was beaten in Italy-- ignore the histrionics, ridiculous behavior and scandal du jour and focus on why his policy sucks.

That is good advise - keep it to the issues/policy. That is why I thought Trump was really blowing it by responding to every little thing that 'ruffled his feathers'. So many other repubs could have argued with substance regarding policy differences and made the case against Hillary. Trump isn't a policy guy as we all know and had to resort to pretty much campaigning on the negative. The only reason he won is because the 'never Trumpers and Never Hillarys' broke heavily in Trump's direction on election date according to some exit polls I heard about. He didn't win on substance only as a 'firewall' against Hillary. The polls that were referenced on this interview I heard is that these Neverers didn't like either one but they knew what they would get wt Hillary and only hoped Trump could be better. In this case, the devil you don't know they thought was better of the one they knew per the pollster.

 

However, going back to your point. Since Trump has made some outlandish promises (China, the Wall, deportation), if the Dems can mount a cohesive, intelligent rebuttal, then maybe they can marginalize the extremes and pull Trump and the repubs back. The congressional repubs from 2010-16 I think failed in many ways to communicate a cohesive, intelligent rebuttal to the ACA (still waiting on the plan) and other policies that they campaigned against with a lot of rhetoric but did very little about in practice.

[TGHusker]

I would take all of that to heart IF you weren't constantly posting Republican talking points. Stuff that's easy to fact-check, but isn't. Yes, you've apologized for posting incorrect info on more than one occasion - but you continue to do it over and over and over. Stop apologizing - check your facts!

 

Now, I understand how someone telling you that could seem like an attack. I understand that you think I'm a liberal. Neither is true, which is what makes the "bitter resentful old man who has to have his way" comment, and the allegation that I'm trying to drive people off, so unfortunate.

Knapp, I know you aren't a liberal - and liberal isn't a bad word - just a different perspective than mine. It is just that I never see you pushing the other side like you do wt us 'right of center' posters. I see your views ranging from just right of center on some issues, moderate on others, and more left of center on some others.

Forgive me for that frustration expressed in bold - it wasn't needed.