GOP is attempting to bribe AK senator to repeal Obamacare by letting her state keep Obamacare

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,854
31,344
146
a usual simplistic explanation lacking in accuracy. Alaska is a difficult case from a health care perspective. Very low population separated by very large distances not seen anywhere else. Some accommodation has to be made for them.

In general, this seems like a decent plan. States get to decide how to handle healthcare. So if a state wants single payer, they can do that as one example. I would think most would welcome local control over their healthcare rather than a mandate from a remote bureaucracy.

Yes, I'm sure this offer has everything to do with the "complexities" of providing healthcare for the least densely-populated state in the nation with one of the more homogeneous health demographics, and absolutely nothing to do with the scum GOP being absolutely desperate to get the one vote from the one AK senator that they absolutely need to pass this bill that even they don't understand.

Nah, it has nothing to do with that. Certainly not desperation, because everything about this process screams measured, regular, disciplined, honest, and is just running over with good intentions for the citizens of the US.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
29,855
30,635
136
a usual simplistic explanation lacking in accuracy. Alaska is a difficult case from a health care perspective. Very low population separated by very large distances not seen anywhere else. Some accommodation has to be made for them.

In general, this seems like a decent plan. States get to decide how to handle healthcare. So if a state wants single payer, they can do that as one example. I would think most would welcome local control over their healthcare rather than a mandate from a remote bureaucracy.


Nope single payer is prohibited at the state level. Care to try again to explain how much flexibility the states are really being given?

It's another shitty plan that will cost millions their coverage and gut health care for the poor.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,935
55,288
136
Nope single payer is prohibited at the state level. Care to try again to explain how much flexibility the states are really being given?

It's another shitty plan that will cost millions their coverage and gut health care for the poor.

That was another pretty funny example of conservatives only liking local control so long as that local control was used to do conservative things. I mean how many times have we seen the party of local control try to ban cities from doing liberal things they don't like?

It's almost as if they don't actually believe what they're saying or something. Shocking, I know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,609
46,271
136
Alaska's governor is so far not impressed:

Republican leaders will now likely have to change an opponent’s mind, but if anything, more opponents could emerge, with Ms. Murkowski on the top of the list. Alaska’s governor, Bill Walker, an independent, publicly opposes the bill and has joined nine other governors in signing a letter urging the Senate to reject the proposal. In an interview, Mr. Walker said he did not believe any special accommodation could be reached for his state, because the overall structure was so damaging to Alaska. He said he had communicated his concerns extensively to Ms. Murkowski.

“Alaska would fare very, very poorly,” he said. “Nothing has been brought to my attention that would increase my comfort level.”

https://nyti.ms/2jQ2tjH
 
Last edited:

lopri

Elite Member
Jul 27, 2002
13,314
690
126
a usual simplistic explanation lacking in accuracy. Alaska is a difficult case from a health care perspective. Very low population separated by very large distances not seen anywhere else. Some accommodation has to be made for them.
Talk about irony. You do not seem to realize how simplistic your "explanation" is. There are many states with just as sparse population in parts of their states. Why are their situation any different? You do not think states with dense population do not have their own unique problems?

The fact that Graham-Cassidy's offering is none other than letting Alaska keep Obamacare is so telling. I do not think anyone will be fooled.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Nope single payer is prohibited at the state level. Care to try again to explain how much flexibility the states are really being given?

It's another shitty plan that will cost millions their coverage and gut health care for the poor.
No one loses coverage if they do not want to, provides some choice back to consumers and States can apply for waivers to try out different health insurance delivery methods. All better thn a collapsing mess we have today where many may have just 1 choice left if even that and provides coverage for procedures they may not want or need.

From the volume of replies to my original post by our fellow statists here, it seems I may have hit a nerve. Fundamentally, if this passes (doubtful), it is a huge step back from single payer which is what I believe the progressives/statists/communists here really want. And that is the real threat. Consumer be damned, we'll tell you what coverage you get, let's get single payer at any cost.
 

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
29,855
30,635
136
No one loses coverage if they do not want to, provides some choice back to consumers and States can apply for waivers to try out different health insurance delivery methods. All better thn a collapsing mess we have today where many may have just 1 choice left if even that and provides coverage for procedures they may not want or need.

From the volume of replies to my original post by our fellow statists here, it seems I may have hit a nerve. Fundamentally, if this passes (doubtful), it is a huge step back from single payer which is what I believe the progressives/statists/communists here really want. And that is the real threat. Consumer be damned, we'll tell you what coverage you get, let's get single payer at any cost.

The only nerve you hit is the one that comes when you post utter bullshit and try to present it as diamond. You can keep trying to polishing the turds that are the "plans" put forth by the GOP for replacing the ACA but they are still turds and yes millions will lose coverage if previous CBO scores are any indication of how the impact of these plans will play out.

How you can even post the bolded with a straight face is beyond me. What specific provisions in the plan are you basing that statement on?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

TeeJay1952

Golden Member
May 28, 2004
1,532
191
106
So if I want to change jobs across State lines I will need permission from "Master?"
or
If I have dependent with Pre-existing condition I must choose from a partial state list?
or
New citizens and dependents must pass physical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
dude you really lack knowledge about communism, you might say socialism instead, however, is not the case here.

Im just using the trigger word against conservatives. They love throwing it around so I think the meaning has changed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,935
55,288
136
No one loses coverage if they do not want to, provides some choice back to consumers and States can apply for waivers to try out different health insurance delivery methods. All better thn a collapsing mess we have today where many may have just 1 choice left if even that and provides coverage for procedures they may not want or need.

From the volume of replies to my original post by our fellow statists here, it seems I may have hit a nerve. Fundamentally, if this passes (doubtful), it is a huge step back from single payer which is what I believe the progressives/statists/communists here really want. And that is the real threat. Consumer be damned, we'll tell you what coverage you get, let's get single payer at any cost.

Please tell me how nobody loses coverage if they don’t want to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
They pay for it?? Maybe like other normal hard working folk. Just saying...

More like just trolling. You know full well that a lot of "normal hard working folk" don't have employer sponsored plans & aren't paid enough to afford insurance under this plan, that ~20M will lose coverage & that the exchanges will become deserted.

But FYGM, anyway, right?

And why are we doing this? To give tax cuts to America's right wing mega Rich as if We the People should reward their economic leadership in such a way. It's fucking insane.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,727
10,032
136
Meanwhile in Georgia, which would rather let its own rural hospitals close than expand Medicaid to its working poor:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/rural-hospitals-closure-georgia_us_59c02bf4e4b087fdf5075e38

Well if you're going to mention it, isn't this the financial fallout of the ACA mandating but not paying for it?

Don't get me wrong, it was bad before... needed a fix, but this is just fuel to the fire since 2010.
Also...with the sound of shuttered banks, stores, everything... that's a perfect parallel to the rural ruination that flipped 2016.
These people need a massive economic agenda. Trump spoke to them, and now he is going to fail them.
It's time for a new deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,163
136
No cause for alarm.
The congress even a republican controlled congress will ever turn medicaid entirely over to the states.
Even the meanest republican would never allow that if he/she thought such a bill could actually pass.
Under that scenario you would have state after state going bankrupt.
Remember, this current bill also demands and forces the state(s) to cover all of their preexisting condition folks.
Not only to run their own state medicaid system, but also somehow someway devise a system to cover all those folks already sick.
This is financially impossible for any state and especially the southern states.

In order to avoid such a disaster, states one after another would be forced into bankruptcy hoping to opt-out.
Opt-out that is of unavoidable financial catastrophe.
We then would enter into the debate of whether or not a state "could legally" opt-out with using bankruptcy in order to avoid the law.
A load of financial burden transferred from the federal government down to the states has taken place in the past.
Transferring over the massive costs for providing medicaid onto the states AND also insisting that state somehow someway cover all their people with preexisting conditions is absurd. Absurd even for a republican controlled congress.

This bill will surely come up for a vote but only to satisfy glorious leader Donald Trump, and a lot of republicans in congress will play their little game by voting/supporting this bill only if that congressional member is personally convinced the bill can not and will not become law.
As long as they know a John McCain or Rand Paul will keep the bill from becoming law, a lot of republicans will feel safe enough to vote yes. "They" will simply allow the McCain's and Paul's of their party to take the fall while "they" step in line to do the biddings of the great fat orange one.
To remain in Trump's favor.

If this bill were to become law, we would witness a mass exodus of states to the bankruptcy courts.
State after state.
All hoping to seek a loophole, a pass out of compliance with the new law.
That law, state ran medicaid and undoubtedly followed by state ran medicare, would assure state bankruptcy coast to coast.
And Donald Trump?
He doesn't give a damn, Why the "F" should he care about your healthcare or your life?
He's just your average everyday con-artist, not some saint.
He has his, so screw everyone else.
And by the way, do I have a deal for you and my red hats?

No need to panic. This law will never happen.

Sometimes I wonder if the republican plan is to screw themselves into a loss come 2020 so that a Bernie Sanders can step up to give us Universal Healthcare?
I think they are so fed up with healthcare and the uncontrollable outrageous costs of any ""for profit"" healthcare system that they are willing to allow some government ran system.
Something like medicare for all?
Nothing else has worked.
They insist Obamacare is a complete failure, and everything they come up with from their side is even worse, so maybe for them Universal Healthcare is the only option left?
Their problem.... how do we do this without looking like we're doing this?
How about running the current system into the ground and killing it off entirely, THEN enter Bernie Sanders stage left...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: lopri

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
52,609
46,271
136
These people need a massive economic agenda. Trump spoke to them, and now he is going to fail them.
It's time for a new deal.

The only thing that could possibly save any part of rural America at this point is an influx of immigration and we know how the Trump administration feels about that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Well if you're going to mention it, isn't this the financial fallout of the ACA mandating but not paying for it?

Don't get me wrong, it was bad before... needed a fix, but this is just fuel to the fire since 2010.
Also...with the sound of shuttered banks, stores, everything... that's a perfect parallel to the rural ruination that flipped 2016.
These people need a massive economic agenda. Trump spoke to them, and now he is going to fail them.
It's time for a new deal.
Obamacare paid for it, Georgia refused the money. Hence rural hospitals closing. Hence Trump trash dying. No new deal for them. They are going to get the deal they voted for.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,727
10,032
136
Obamacare paid for it, Georgia refused the money. Hence rural hospitals closing. Hence Trump trash dying. No new deal for them. They are going to get the deal they voted for.

You make it sound like a gift.

Don't they have to pay into as well. What was it, a 50% share of the costs?