Doom, gloom, head for your bunkers!! I mean, before obummercare was rammed into place, it was pretty much the zombie apocalypse! How can we possibly survive that?? 
The news story that this thread is based on is about the CBO estimate. If you weren't talking about the CBO estimate then what was the 'this' referenced in your post?
I'm going to bet you refuse to answer and try to lie your way out again. Prove me wrong!
Bitek
Lifer
- Aug 2, 2001
- 10,676
- 5,239
- 136
Thump553
Lifer
- Jun 2, 2000
- 12,839
- 2,625
- 136
Come on, be honest now. For decades the CBO has been widely respected, on both sides of the fence, as being one of the very few Washington institutions that goes through rigorous, FACT based analysis of the economic effects of proposed legislation. You label it as pure conjecture because of the "what if" Congress repeals the ACA. Guess what, that is exactly what the GOP is doing now.
Would you feel more comfortable if we did NO studies in advance to determine what the economic fallout of legislation would be? That's totally silly.
----
Back on topic, my personal feeling as to why so much of the GOP is bound and determined to repeal the ACA, I think the vast majority of Americans don't buy their own health insurance-they are covered through work, retirement/SS/Medicare or are otherwise government paid (military, government employees, etc). In fact nearly every teaparty person I know falls squarely into those categories. In other words, I got mine, the rest of you can go f*ck yourself.
Coupled with the general mindset against insurance (why waste my money, I'll buy it when I get in a wreck/need healthcare, etc., ie shortsighted stupidity.
Londo_Jowo
Lifer
Maybe they'll have to pass a law before you can see what's in it.
I've been lucky that both of the companies I worked for since the ACA passed are self insured so I have a low deductible, copay,band max out of pocket with premiums well below what people who have ACA insurance pays.
I think you misread his thought process. To people like him a source is credible based on whether it tells him what he wants to hear or not.
Good news for conservatives? Good source.
Bad news for conservatives? Liberal plot.
Creating more risk and uncertainty is the way to drive up costs. Both insurance corporations and healthcare organizations are going to seek to mitigate this by administrative efforts. That's where our dollars are going. Medical claims are like lawsuits. Without a legal team, you're at the mercy of the other side. But it's pretty easy to get everything sucked up by legal fees.
That's why I like solutions that push for expansion of Medicare (predominantly) toward universal coverage. Despite some susceptibility to fraud, its still more efficient and keeps accountability in spending with the provider. In my experience, attempts to limit unnecessary spending by providers have had a net increase in cost and decrease in benefit.
That's why I like solutions that push for expansion of Medicare (predominantly) toward universal coverage. Despite some susceptibility to fraud, its still more efficient and keeps accountability in spending with the provider. In my experience, attempts to limit unnecessary spending by providers have had a net increase in cost and decrease in benefit.
Deflection into post-truth memes, huh?
Repubs' plan is apparently free market healthcare insurance. Ideologically, it's the only thing that fits and it's the only thing that fits with their proposed actions. CBO analysis indicates that won't work fer shit, but, uhh, never mind. None of it matters when we're talkin' 'bout Freedumb!
HomerJS
Lifer
- Feb 6, 2002
- 39,359
- 32,864
- 136
Just curious, Republicans have voted to repeal the ACA around 70 times in the last 5 years. Should the replacement be ready to go? Why are they just developing it now?
One thing I know for sure is Tom Price's health insurance plan from 2015 will not be part of Trump's plan. It's cool they ran this report, but it was a gross waste of paper and bandwidth. My apologies to all who took the time to read.
This estimate is not based on Tom Price's insurance plan, it is an estimate based on a separate piece of legislation Price put forward to repeal the ACA and it is identical to legislation that has already passed the Senate. It seems that this estimate, requested by Congress, is in fact a very good use of paper and bandwidth.
Trump didn't run so Tom Price could get his Restoring Americans Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015 passed. If it does pass he'd veto it. It's just not what Trump wants.
Trump very much wants to repeal the ACA (or at least that's what he claims). That's what this legislation does and that's what the CBO scored. It is not Tom Price's health insurance plan, which is the 'Empowering Patients First Act'. You're mixing the two up.
Okay true. Either way point still stands. He wants all Americans insured and to negotiate with drug companies.
Might as well just tuck this one away to see where it goes.
So, given that there's no alternative in sight, certainly not from either Trump or the Repubs, it means that we'll still have the ACA?
I don't think so. If Trump vetoes repeal because there's no better plan offered he's a better man than I've given him credit for & will be directly at odds with Tom Price, the man he chose to be HHS secretary.
Like I said we'll see. Trump is a reformer and I doubt he'll take too seriously anything the republican party puts forward without his golden touch.
Trump is a con man, simply the world's greatest. They all live by a simple creed, which is to never give a sucker an even break. That's us.
I talked about the lefty hysteria associated with the story, not the CBO. Just because you are a habitual liar doesn't mean everyone else is, stop projecting. Standard eski-m.o.
I talked about the lefty hysteria associated with the story, not the CBO. Just because you are a habitual liar doesn't mean everyone else is, stop projecting. Standard eski-m.o.
What 'hysteria' were you referring to, specifically? Can you point to something in the article or a post here?
By the way that is a terrible nickname. It reeks of trying too hard.
If these people, ie the ones that can afford coverage but decide to do without, would sign a document certifying their understanding that in the event they incur a medical expense exceeding their ability to pay they will be denied medical treatment, I'd be inclined to let them. They would of course attempt to crawl back to the government tit if that gamble bit them in the ass, but society needs to make examples of them.
JSt0rm
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 27,399
- 3,948
- 126
glenn1
Lifer
- Sep 6, 2000
- 25,383
- 1,013
- 126
Somehow that problem seems to have been solved quite some time ago with the invention of open enrollment periods, which could also help solve some of the "pre-existing condition" problems. We could also require some sort of "escrow" account to prevent short-term insurance lapses and allow for "forced placement" insurance funded by payroll garnishments if someone dropped insurance and later sought medical treatment without being able to pay cash.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,784
- 6,343
- 126
Trump said the Plan would be replaced within a week, a few days, or even the same hour. What you worried about?
Sonikku
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2005
- 15,901
- 4,927
- 136
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
-
Facebook
Twitter