Republican/conservative healthcare alternative still MIA 5 yrs later

[Cozarkian]

Why not just tax all money spent on premiums equally, whether you spend it or your employer does?

While I agree our current system of incentivizing employer based health care is stupid I don't see much benefit in explicitly disincentivizing it.

Make all premiums the same, tax wise, and call it a day.

I accidentally submitted before I was done and had to edit.

In response, because allowing employers to deduct premiums might not provide enough incentive to eliminate employer-sponsored health care.

Forcing them to disclose what they pay helps compare jobs, but you still might have to switch insurance when switching jobs, which might mean you have to switch doctors. That is a government-sponsored restriction on the free market that benefits employers. Both sides should be on board with eliminating that.

 

[fskimospy]

Did any of you actually read the Heritage Plan? Or just what the Daily Show told you about it?

Yes, and they are extremely similar.

The foundation of the ACA is what's known as the 'three legged stool'. You have:

1. Community rating.
2. Individual mandate.
3. Premium support for people who can't afford them.

 

[fskimospy]

I accidentally submitted before I was done and had to edit.

In response, because allowing employers to deduct premiums might not provide enough incentive to eliminate employer-sponsored health care.

Forcing them to disclose what they pay helps compare jobs, but you still might have to switch insurance when switching jobs, which might mean you have to switch doctors. That is a government-sponsored restriction on the free market that benefits employers. Both sides should be on board with eliminating that.

But providing tax advantages for individuals purchasing health insurance while not providing them for companies purchasing health insurance is also a government sponsored restriction on the free market.

I'm down with eliminating the employer tax credit, but replacing it with an individual tax credit is problematic on its own.

 

[werepossum]

Damn, I would have been the 4th to come post this. Or, asked another way, why are Dems taking credit for implementing the Rep plan? Or, why are Reps so up in arms about their own plan?

Or, a bigger question: Why, given that elected Politicians should be doing what is best for the constituents even if it costs them their job, would the Dems with super majority not implement Single Payer like they should have? They had years to have that bill completely thought out and worked up, how could they possibly have been so negligent (and at that level of affect, that's like, Traitor and Criminal negligent) as to not have done that?

Only Harry and Nancy will ever know... (it's not like campaign mode new POTUS Bummer had any idea what was going on)

Dems had to do some serious arm-twisting, bribing, and procedural maneuvering to get Obamacare passed. There is zero chance they could have passed a single-payer program. There are simply too many Democrat Senators not willing to sacrifice their own careers to get it.

 

[Sonikku]

This should have been taken care of in Carter's days but Kennedy's crucial support was yanked right out from under Carter so he could break away and make his own presidential run with hopes of making it his legacy. He failed and and Carter lost reelection. Healthcare wouldn't be a topic again until the powerful corporations now running the show had a stranglehold on government.

 

[chucky2]

Dems had to do some serious arm-twisting, bribing, and procedural maneuvering to get Obamacare passed. There is zero chance they could have passed a single-payer program. There are simply too many Democrat Senators not willing to sacrifice their own careers to get it.

Yeah, I understand it would have been a very hard battle - but that's what Politicians are there for (well, what they're supposed to be there for). I am not convinced the leaders of the Dem party couldn't have bribed threatened whoever to get their support for passing Single Payer. In the end Politicians need to vote on it, and the reality is, Politicians are just like Lawyers: Whores. You give the whore what it wants and you get something in return...it's not like enough of these people in Congress have true values.

In the end Pelosi and Reid did the easy thing and passed Bummercare (easy, because, they had the votes to get something substantial, it was only a question of what that would be). Now we're stuck with something suboptimal because Whore Leadership couldn't be bothered to bribe other Whores with money we didn't have to get votes for something that would actually help us in the long run. When you can't even trust Whores to be Whores, what does that say for ability of our Whores? It's shameful...

 

[Cozarkian]

Yeah, I understand it would have been a very hard battle - but that's what Politicians are there for (well, what they're supposed to be there for). I am not convinced the leaders of the Dem party couldn't have bribed threatened whoever to get their support for passing Single Payer. In the end Politicians need to vote on it, and the reality is, Politicians are just like Lawyers: Whores. You give the whore what it wants and you get something in return...it's not like enough of these people in Congress have true values.

In the end Pelosi and Reid did the easy thing and passed Bummercare (easy, because, they had the votes to get something substantial, it was only a question of what that would be). Now we're stuck with something suboptimal because Whore Leadership couldn't be bothered to bribe other Whores with money we didn't have to get votes for something that would actually help us in the long run. When you can't even trust Whores to be Whores, what does that say for ability of our Whores? It's shameful...

You understand it is substantially more difficult to eliminate serving like the ACA then to expand it? The plan was to get a framework in place and then to fix it later eventually leading to the end goal of single payer.

Think of it as a whore selling plain sex with the intent to hook the customer into returning and paying for kinky sex.

 

[ivwshane]

You understand it is substantially more difficult to eliminate serving like the ACA then to expand it? The plan was to get a framework in place and then to fix it later eventually leading to the end goal of single payer.

Think of it as a whore selling plain sex with the intent to hook the customer into returning and paying for kinky sex.

It doesn't matter. If you look at his post you will see that the only people he holds accountable are those that were actually trying to fix the problem. Those that were actively trying to stop that from happening don't even get mentioned by him. The guy is nothing but a hack who screams and complains about government not working all while supporting politicians who are intent on not fixing government at the least or who try to break government at the worst.

 

[First]

You understand it is substantially more difficult to eliminate serving like the ACA then to expand it? The plan was to get a framework in place and then to fix it later eventually leading to the end goal of single payer.

Think of it as a whore selling plain sex with the intent to hook the customer into returning and paying for kinky sex.

Rofl, that is an interesting, and not entirely inaccurate explanation! 9/10.

 

[chucky2]

You understand it is substantially more difficult to eliminate serving like the ACA then to expand it? The plan was to get a framework in place and then to fix it later eventually leading to the end goal of single payer.

Yes I'm aware of that. I'm also aware we're paying lots of HC when we could be having Single Payer. I also never remember Politicians publically screaming from the rooftops that this was something that was just a temporary framework and that the goal was to "fix" what they needed to rush pass to get to Single Payer. It's sorta crazy how if that is the case, we really never heard that?

Think of it as a whore selling plain sex with the intent to hook the customer into returning and paying for kinky sex.

Well, I'd think of it this way: A whore paid for sex (Politician getting elected) and then instead of delivering on the services, throwing me a Playboy and telling me in a few years, providing I keep paying her, maybe I'll get a handjob. Not the sex I wanted, not the sex they were paid for.

It doesn't matter. If you look at his post you will see that the only people he holds accountable are those that were actually trying to fix the problem. Those that were actively trying to stop that from happening don't even get mentioned by him. The guy is nothing but a hack who screams and complains about government not working all while supporting politicians who are intent on not fixing government at the least or who try to break government at the worst.

Harry and Nancy were in charge at the time, so that's who I'm going to rail on. It's their responsibility, not the Reps who the Dems didn't even care to meaningfully involve in the process (not fake involve, real involve). The Dems wanted to run the show and show 'what the adults' could do, and we've seen how good a job they did: They sucked. (or to stick with the Whore theme, gave us some Playboy papercuts). I'm not sure why you'd want me to rail on a political party that had zero control and was not desired to be involved by the party that was in control?

 

[Cozarkian]

Yes I'm aware of that. I'm also aware we're paying lots of HC when we could be having Single Payer. I also never remember Politicians publically screaming from the rooftops that this was something that was just a temporary framework and that the goal was to "fix" what they needed to rush pass to get to Single Payer. It's sorta crazy how if that is the case, we really never heard that?

Advertising that was the plan would have been self sabotage.

Imagine a goal of making same sex marriage legal. Some states achieved this goal by first passing domestic partnership or civil union laws, which helped normalize same sex relationships and made it easier to get full marriage later.

The civil union laws were able to garner the support of people who thought "I don't care if gay people have something like marriage, but don't call it marriage." If the supporters ran a public campaign saying "today domestic partners, tomorrow spouses" they would have lost the support of the "don't call it marriage" crowd and couldn't have passed the domestic marriage laws in the first place.

Similarly, stating "today ACA, tomorrow single payer" would have cause the entire bill to lose support. By taking it one step at a time without publicizing where the road leads, the odds of reaching the final destination are improved.

 

[chucky2]

Yes, I get what you're saying, we see exactly that with every issue (legit or whiner, gay "marriage" prime example). This is why conservative people have become so ardently opposed to entertaining whatever whine liberal people have today, because they know that giving a millimeter means giving up a kilometer.

My point is, I think they could have go the votes if Dem Leadership would have went nuclear to get it. This is not an issue that doesn't really matter (such as gay "marriage"), this really has life and death consequences, suffering, and significant financial hardships for tens of Millions (especially considering how long it'll take to be properly fixed). My expectation of good Leadership would have been to seize the chance (that they pretty much knew was coming), have a quality SP bill waiting in the wings, and gotten it pushed through.

How many Millions will now needlessly suffer because they didn't have the stomach/courage to do that? For how many decades?

 

[werepossum]

You understand it is substantially more difficult to eliminate serving like the ACA then to expand it? The plan was to get a framework in place and then to fix it later eventually leading to the end goal of single payer.

Think of it as a whore selling plain sex with the intent to hook the customer into returning and paying for kinky sex.

"And if you thought that anal sex was great, just wait until you come back tomorrow. I'll strap on and screw you."

"Great! I can't wa- Wait, what?"

Obamacare was pretty much a win-win for Democrats. Fails utterly? It's because Republicans wouldn't help us implement the Republican plan. We wanted single payer all along, it's the only system that works. Succeeds? Just think how great it will be when we fully transition to single payer. The important thing was always securing control for the federal bureaucracy; results can always be spun any way needed.

 

[nickqt]

Yes, I get what you're saying, we see exactly that with every issue (legit or whiner, gay "marriage" prime example). This is why conservative people have become so ardently opposed to entertaining whatever whine liberal people have today, because they know that giving a millimeter means giving up a kilometer.

My point is, I think they could have go the votes if Dem Leadership would have went nuclear to get it. This is not an issue that doesn't really matter (such as gay "marriage"), this really has life and death consequences, suffering, and significant financial hardships for tens of Millions (especially considering how long it'll take to be properly fixed). My expectation of good Leadership would have been to seize the chance (that they pretty much knew was coming), have a quality SP bill waiting in the wings, and gotten it pushed through.

How many Millions will now needlessly suffer because they didn't have the stomach/courage to do that? For how many decades?

Two things:

The Democratic "supermajority" lasted for about 2 months.

The Democratic party is the big tent party here in the US. There are socialist Democrats, librul Democrats, moderate liberal Democrats, and gasp - conservative Democrats.

Single payer was never a possibility, full stop.

Perhaps you mean the Public Option, where a Federal Insurance plan exists alongside private insurance. That got dropped pretty quickly, and it isn't hard to understand why, since even the ACA, a non-government takeover was painted ad nauseum as SOSHALIZED MEDUHSIN to the tribe who rubs shit in their hair, and garnered exactly zero Republican votes.

So, trying to blame the Democratic party for passing a bill that inched over the line, for not passing something that didn't have a chance in hell is funny, but also very pointless. I mean, you can blame Reid and Pelosi all you want, but it's interesting that you think that a Public Option (or even Single Payer) would be better, and yet don't hold the other 40% of the Senate accountable for ensuring that only a weakened reform bill could be passed.

It's just another flavor of the BothSidesDoIt™ biglie that provides cover to the Reactionary party.

 

[Sonikku]

Two things:

The Democratic "supermajority" lasted for about 2 months.

The Democratic party is the big tent party here in the US. There are socialist Democrats, librul Democrats, moderate liberal Democrats, and gasp - conservative Democrats.

Single payer was never a possibility, full stop.

Perhaps you mean the Public Option, where a Federal Insurance plan exists alongside private insurance. That got dropped pretty quickly, and it isn't hard to understand why, since even the ACA, a non-government takeover was painted ad nauseum as SOSHALIZED MEDUHSIN to the tribe who rubs shit in their hair, and garnered exactly zero Republican votes.

 

[piasabird]

Since when has the left even considered the suggestions of the GOP when it came to healthcare? Everything right or wrong was authored and implemented by Democratic fascists.

Instead of hiring Americans to work on the website they hired people from Canada because they were friends of the Obamas. All the out of work people in the USA and the federal government hires foreign workers who were completely incompetent.

 

[piasabird]

The Cadillac health care tax is coming.

Democrats do all they can to kill the golden goose.

 

[chucky2]

Two things:

The Democratic "supermajority" lasted for about 2 months.

The Democratic party is the big tent party here in the US. There are socialist Democrats, librul Democrats, moderate liberal Democrats, and gasp - conservative Democrats.

Single payer was never a possibility, full stop.

Perhaps you mean the Public Option, where a Federal Insurance plan exists alongside private insurance. That got dropped pretty quickly, and it isn't hard to understand why, since even the ACA, a non-government takeover was painted ad nauseum as SOSHALIZED MEDUHSIN to the tribe who rubs shit in their hair, and garnered exactly zero Republican votes.

So, trying to blame the Democratic party for passing a bill that inched over the line, for not passing something that didn't have a chance in hell is funny, but also very pointless. I mean, you can blame Reid and Pelosi all you want, but it's interesting that you think that a Public Option (or even Single Payer) would be better, and yet don't hold the other 40% of the Senate accountable for ensuring that only a weakened reform bill could be passed.

It's just another flavor of the BothSidesDoIt™ biglie that provides cover to the Reactionary party.

They should have used their supermajority wisely then huh? I don't care of the Reps opposed it as a party, the Dems didn't give a F about wanting Rep involvement, their attitude was quiet clear that they were in power, Savior was elected, and Reps needed to go crawl in a hole somewhere with their god and guns and leave the running of the country to 'the adults'. My guess, giving that the Rep party, being political, is of course made up of Whores, is they could have found some small number of Whores on the Rep side they could have politically bribed to vote for a UHC, and I have little doubt with enough bribing and threatening the conservative Whores in the Dem party could have been enticed to go along as well. I don't care if they had to promise them Federally funded nuke plants, airbase, seaport, miniguns allowed on personal vehicles, whatever. Get it done by any barely legal means necessary (or even mildly illegal, the Public understands these are Whores, it's not like anyone respects them or thinks they're honest anyways). The fact is, they didn't. They didn't have a UHC bill waiting in the wings, they didn't try to go down that road, they didn't attempt to do the hard thing. They got something, anything, done so they could say they got something done. Their goal wasn't to get a better medical system in place, their goal was to make it look like they did something so they could put it down in a Signature Accomplishment column. The problem is, their Signature Accomplishment is that they failed when they should have succeeded.

Oh, btw, you forgot Benghazi!

 

[werepossum]

I don't think that sign references what you think it references. Obamacare looted the Medicare/Medicaid fund to appear to cost under a trillion for the first ten years. On the other hand, the "public option" would have been adding people (and money) to Medicaid. I'm not a big fan of expanding government programs' competition with the private sector, but let's at least keep our slurs in their proper boxes.

 

[First]

I don't think that sign references what you think it references. Obamacare looted the Medicare/Medicaid fund to appear to cost under a trillion for the first ten years. On the other hand, the "public option" would have been adding people (and money) to Medicaid. I'm not a big fan of expanding government programs' competition with the private sector, but let's at least keep our slurs in their proper boxes.

What fund did ACA loot from Medicare?

 

[fskimospy]

What fund did ACA loot from Medicare?

I'm also interested to see how the 'Medicare fund' was looted.

 

[werepossum]

What fund did ACA loot from Medicare?

I'm also interested to see how the 'Medicare fund' was looted.

<sigh> Take your pick.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ays-obamacare-cuts-money-medicare-and-senior/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...acare-cuts-medicare-by-716-billion-heres-how/

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben..._cut_billions_from_medicare_to_fund_obamacare

TAPPER: &#8220;One of the concerns about health care and how you pay for it &#8212; one third of the funding comes from cuts to Medicare.&#8221;

BARACK OBAMA: &#8220;Right.&#8221;

TAPPER: &#8220;A lot of times, as you know, what happens in Congress is somebody will do something bold and then Congress, close to election season, will undo it.&#8221;

OBAMA: &#8220;Right.&#8221;

TAPPER: &#8220;You saw that with the &#8216;doc fix&#8217;.&#8221;

OBAMA: &#8220;Right.&#8221;

TAPPER: &#8220;Are you willing to pledge that whatever cuts in Medicare are being made to fund health insurance, one third of it, that you will veto anything that tries to undo that?&#8221;

OBAMA: &#8220;Yes. I actually have said that it is important for us to make sure this thing is deficit neutral, without tricks. I said I wouldn&#8217;t sign a bill that didn&#8217;t meet that criteria.&#8221;

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...ts-medicare-more-than-president-romney-would/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...s-defense-of-its-716-billion-cut-to-medicare/

http://www.latimes.com/business/hil...s-plots-to-raid-medicare-20150518-column.html

You guys have gotten off the official script, which is not that the ACA did not loot the Medicare/Medicaid fund but that those cuts were a good thing because they only cut payments to doctors, nurses and hospitals, not "benefits".

Queue proggies explaining how "context" means that Obama admitting a third of the ACA funding is from cuts in Medicare (and promising to veto anything restoring those cuts) actually means there are no cuts in Medicare.

 

[Sonikku]

Since when has the left even considered the suggestions of the GOP when it came to healthcare?

What you mean like Romneycare?

 

[fskimospy]

<sigh> Take your pick.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ays-obamacare-cuts-money-medicare-and-senior/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...acare-cuts-medicare-by-716-billion-heres-how/

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben..._cut_billions_from_medicare_to_fund_obamacare

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...ts-medicare-more-than-president-romney-would/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...s-defense-of-its-716-billion-cut-to-medicare/

http://www.latimes.com/business/hil...s-plots-to-raid-medicare-20150518-column.html

You guys have gotten off the official script, which is not that the ACA did not loot the Medicare/Medicaid fund but that those cuts were a good thing because they only cut payments to doctors, nurses and hospitals, not "benefits".

Queue proggies explaining how "context" means that Obama admitting a third of the ACA funding is from cuts in Medicare (and promising to veto anything restoring those cuts) actually means there are no cuts in Medicare.

Sigh indeed.

Ahh, so you meant 'cut Medicare spending', not 'looted the Medicare fund'. Those are two very different things as Medicare has several trust funds. The funds residing in them were not affected by these cuts in any way I am aware of. When attempting to dishonestly spin things you should be more careful in your choice of words.

Your complaints about the 'looting' are pretty curious though, because as you mention the cuts to Medicare were in spending, but not in services. You would think conservatives would be big fans of that, as the government would presumably be paying less for the same level of services. Who knew you were such big fans of government waste?

Maybe Obama should work to pass a bill that gives an extra $700 billion to federal employee salaries over the next 10 years. That should be right up your alley!

 

[First]

<sigh> Take your pick.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ays-obamacare-cuts-money-medicare-and-senior/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...acare-cuts-medicare-by-716-billion-heres-how/

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben..._cut_billions_from_medicare_to_fund_obamacare



http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...ts-medicare-more-than-president-romney-would/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...s-defense-of-its-716-billion-cut-to-medicare/

http://www.latimes.com/business/hil...s-plots-to-raid-medicare-20150518-column.html

You guys have gotten off the official script, which is not that the ACA did not loot the Medicare/Medicaid fund but that those cuts were a good thing because they only cut payments to doctors, nurses and hospitals, not "benefits".

Queue proggies explaining how "context" means that Obama admitting a third of the ACA funding is from cuts in Medicare (and promising to veto anything restoring those cuts) actually means there are no cuts in Medicare.

There are not enough facepalms in the world to reply to this post.

Looting an entitlement fund pretty much universally refers to benefits cuts. 404 Benefit Cuts Not Found.

Cutting payments to hospitals/providers? If doable (and so far, it has been), then it's a complete and utter no-brainer.