You cant filabuster the repeal of Obamacare?

[Doc Savage Fan]

This will be particularly funny if you ever figure out what those terms actually mean.

Conservative brain trust represent.

So you don't know the difference between universal healthcare and single-payer after all...I figured as much. You should be embarrassed if such a thing were possible.

 

[ivwshane]

Then you clearly don't understand the impact of the SCOTUS decision which upheld the mandate on one hand, but substantially limited ACA’s expansion of Medicaid on the other. That's probably why my comment doesn't make any sense to you.


ACA was fatally flawed and dying. I don't know what Republicans will offer and I'll likely offer an opinion at that time. But I'm in no way supporting whatever Republicans do carte blanche..all I'm saying is there are a couple potentially effective pathways beyond the ACA model. But I imagine this is intellectually uncomfortable for people who are trying to find a way to justify demonization of whatever the Republicans may propose after years of saying the ACA is awesome, but such is life.

That's what he's saying, just don't expect him to explain what those pathways might be. He might want to call the GOP or trump directly and give them some help, after 6 years they still don't have a viable alternative. Doc does!
Lol

 

[agent00f]

So you don't know the difference between universal healthcare and single-payer...I figured as much. You should be embarrassed if such a thing is possible.

Please do explain who that mysterious single payer is and who he needs to cover, preferably without using breitbart & such.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Please do explain who that mysterious single payer is and who he needs to cover, preferably without using breitbart & such.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunr...-is-not-single-payer-healthcare/#37907ea847f5

Hopefully you learned something today.

 

[agent00f]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_care

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-payer_healthcare

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunr...-is-not-single-payer-healthcare/#37907ea847f5

Hopefully you learned something today.

Very first line of your own link:

"Single-payer healthcare is a system in which the state, rather than private insurers, pays for all healthcare costs."

So who doesn't get any healthcare in your estimate?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Very first line of your own link:

"Single-payer healthcare is a system in which the state, rather than private insurers, pays for all healthcare costs."

So who doesn't get any healthcare in your estimate?

Wow...and you're still hanging onto your ignorance. Impressive! The Clinton's didn't propose single-payer. Deal with it.

 

[agent00f]

Wow...and you're still hanging onto your ignorance. Impressive! The Clinton's didn't propose single-payer. Deal with it.

UHC is a stepping stone to the gumbint owning it, isn't that what your crowd has been fearing all along?: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...-trump-wrongly-says-hillary-clinton-wants-go/

"It indicates "that she supports a 'public option' for Obamacare," Kowalski said. "A 'public option' is a single-payer-like option for health care delivery."

But good thing you got this guy:

"She wants to go to a single-payer plan, which would be a disaster," Trump said during the presidential debate at Washington University in St. Louis Oct. 9. " Hahahaha

 

[Sonikku]

You should read the thread. Reconciliation can't bring the ACA to an end because the ACA was passed through regular order and a large amount of it isn't subject to reconciliation.

The GOP can fuck the country up by repealing select parts of the ACA but they need to either get 60 votes or eliminate the filibuster to actually end the ACA.

Could be leaning towards the latter.

 

[Meghan54]

"The poors" (whoever they are) probably didn't like their ACA premiums skyrocketing over the last year.

And thank the Republicans for that. The Repubs caused it by underfunding the ACA on purpose just so it'd fail, unlike the 2006 Medicare Prescription legislation which, after Bush's admin. passed it, funded it like it was written. This is diametrically opposed to what the Repubs. did with the ACA.

 

[Bitek]

Let's dispel the notion that we have no idea what the GOP replacement plan will look like.

While there is no consensus plan, our deep details, there are a few leading plans by the major leaders ( Speaker Ryan's Better Way, and Sen Hatch's Patient CARE ) that will likely be the center of gravity.

Overall, most of the alternates to the ACA look like the ACA, with most of the differences being making the pools younger and cheaper by shifting costs to the sick and poor, as well as making the min ins levels crappier.

After that it's degrees of how much to screw the poor and elderly over by cutting Medicaid, Medicare and subsidies.

Trump's plan couldn't fill out a Twitter post, so don't be shocked to see him high level some requirements and let the Congress figure it out.

Should get real interesting when the people who lose coverage figure it out and protest the plans, and Trump scrambles to appease them at the expense of his party in Congress (eg more subsidies, coverage.)


Don't be shocked if we don't end up taking the long route to just tweaked Obamacare, something a functional govt could have done years ago.

 

[JEDI]

Overall, most of the alternates to the ACA look like the ACA, with most of the differences being making the pools younger and cheaper by shifting costs to the sick and poor, as well as making the min ins levels crappier.

After that it's degrees of how much to screw the poor and elderly over by cutting Medicaid, Medicare and subsidies.

am I the only one ok with that Repub plan?
<-------- Obama supporter

 

[Victorian Gray]

So you don't know the difference between universal healthcare and single-payer after all...I figured as much. You should be embarrassed if such a thing were possible.

Umm, single payer is simply one of several different ways of providing universal health care. A nationalized health care system like Great Britain's is another way. Both are systems that provide universal health care.

 

[Bitek]

am I the only one ok with that Repub plan?
<-------- Obama supporter

There are prolly quite a few of you, and all likely younger and not using much hc.

This is why this is more of a rebalancing of Obamacare rather than "rip it out, root and branch"

Regardless, everybody gets old though, so you'll be on the other side eventually. Pay now, or pay more later, with potentially disastrous results to the vulnerable.

 

[highland145]

And thank the Republicans for that. The Repubs caused it by underfunding the ACA on purpose just so it'd fail, unlike the 2006 Medicare Prescription legislation which, after Bush's admin. passed it, funded it like it was written. This is diametrically opposed to what the Repubs. did with the ACA.

The dems own this steaming pile of crap no matter how you slice it. 900 pages of "pass it so you'll know what's in it". 100% down party lines. Right? The only reason the fucks took so long to pass it was for their perks.

The reason the repubs can own it now is that they're stupid.


But you're getting yours. Right? While I get fucked. New Hampshire's calling.

 

[ivwshane]

The dems own this steaming pile of crap no matter how you slice it. 900 pages of "pass it so you'll know what's in it". 100% down party lines. Right? The only reason the fucks took so long to pass it was for their perks.

The reason the repubs can own it now is that they're stupid.


But you're getting yours. Right? While I get fucked. New Hampshire's calling.

I'm hoping you are getting fucked. Ignorant people such us as yourself need to feel the pain and understand and suffer the consequences of their stupidity and actions. Or so I've been told by the right for several decades regarding any issue dealing with the less fortunate.

So have a beer or two or three on me, hopefully you'll suffer some liver problems too.

Your ignorance will be your jail cell

 

[theeedude]

You can't filibuster the funding or penalty amounts, since those impact budget and fall under reconciliation. But you can filibuster repeal of community rating, which means people can't be discriminated against if they have a pre-existing condition, since that's a non-budgetary rule.
But, if you keep community rating, the only way the system functions is if you have the other parts of Obamacare, such as the individual mandate and the subsidies to buy insurance for those who can't afford it. Otherwise everyone will just wait till they are sick to buy insurance, and that means that insurance will cost same as cost of care for the already sick, and will be largely pointless.
So effectively, if Democrats filibuster repeal of the pre-existing condition clause, than Republicans will have to decide between keeping Obamacare mostly as is, or creating a health insurance market disaster on their own watch and then getting hammered politically. It will be fun to see what they decide to do.

 

[Meghan54]

The dems own this steaming pile of crap no matter how you slice it. 900 pages of "pass it so you'll know what's in it". 100% down party lines. Right? The only reason the fucks took so long to pass it was for their perks.

The reason the repubs can own it now is that they're stupid.


But you're getting yours. Right? While I get fucked. New Hampshire's calling.

So, what you're saying is you have no idea why ins. premiums went up drastically except the hearsay you've taken as fact, eh?

Here's a bit of why it happened with historical background:

The Medicare drug plan program started under President Bush in 2006. Today, competition there is vigorous, rates are lower than estimated and enrollees are satisfied. In other words, the market works well.

Why? The legislation offered well-established methods to reduce risk. For example, it built in protections for insurers who enrolled especially sick people. It also provided backup payments for very high-cost cases and protected against big losses and limited big gains in the first three years.

The ACA gets passed with these same methods to reduce risk...create large pools of insured, backup payments for high cost cases, protect against big loses, limit gains...all for the first few years of the ACA.

Instead, the Repubs. went after the ACA because, the best I can determine, Obama. No other rational reason. Anyway, when the time came to pay up for risk reduction in the Obamacare exchanges, Congress reneged and paid only 12% of what was owed to the insurers. So, on top of the fact that the companies had to bear the risk of unknown costs and utilization in the startup years, which turned out to be higher than they expected, insurers had to absorb legislative uncertainty of whether the rules would be rewritten.

It is no wonder that this year they have dramatically increased premiums, averaging 20%, to compensate for the extra risk they didn’t factor into the original lower rates. In contrast, underlying health costs are rising at about 5%.

I'll bet you never wondered why the premiums went up, just that Obama is somehow responsible because it was "badly written and inept" or some such drivel. Fact is, if the Repubs. had supported the ACA like they did the 2006 Medicare Prescription Drug legislation and allowed it to function like it was designed, you most likely wouldn't have been fucked...at all.

But instead, blame Obama for the actions of the Repubs. who really created the mess.

 

[Meghan54]

But you're getting yours. Right?

Yep....got mine.

 

[Bitek]

^^^

Thank you for facts.

It's about time we start using them people, everything counts for real now.

 

[Bitek]

More food for thought on the legislative perils of the Republicans chosen path:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byrd_Rule

"Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus). The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline which provisions reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous" (and therefore ineligible for reconciliation) in six cases:

1. if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
2. if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
3. if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
4. if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
5. if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and
6. if it recommends changes in Social Security.

Any senator may raise a procedural objection to a provision believed to be extraneous, which will then be ruled on by the Presiding Officer, customarily on the advice of the Senate Parliamentarian. A vote of 60 senators is required to overturn the ruling. The Presiding Officer need not necessarily follow the advice of the Parliamentarian, and the Parliamentarian can be replaced by the Senate Majority Leader.[2] However, this has not been done since 1975.[3]"

----------------

Obamacare was passed as it was scored as reducing the deficit. Both in raising taxes and "bending down the cost curve" of Medicare and Medicaid spending long term.

With the promised OCare tax cuts/eliminations, the GOP will have carefully navigate the balance to find spending offsets to keep within reconciliation rules. This will likely be benefit and subsidy cuts which will immediately effect millions of people, red states that accepted Medicaid expansion (watch Kentucky) as well as the insurance industry.

Will be a shit storm.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Naturally the dopes running things won't understand what health care means anyway, so they'll not do the proper thing and have a broader and better option to replace as prudence demands. No Democrats that does not mean you choices either unless they are apolitical and better from the perspective of the patient. Fortunatly some people have understood that in all this nonsense the patient and their health wasn't even a real concern. Whether it penetrates the power stranglehold of ignorance in DC remains to be seen. Maybe after this generation dies out

 

[MrSquished]

I see some people saying the Repubs will replace with something similar to Obamacare.

I haven't seen that in the news. Any linkage?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'm hoping you are getting fucked. Ignorant people such us as yourself need to feel the pain and understand and suffer the consequences of their stupidity and actions. Or so I've been told by the right for several decades regarding any issue dealing with the less fortunate.

So have a beer or two or three on me, hopefully you'll suffer some liver problems too.

Your ignorance will be your jail cell

Just shut up and deal with realities, not what should be. That long standing advice you've been giving.. It's the system and deal with it. It's everything you asked for.

 

[ivwshane]

Just shut up and deal with realities, not what should be. That long standing advice you've been giving.. It's the system and deal with it. It's everything you asked for.

Lol! That's good advice! You should take it! I did enjoy the fantasy post you made prior though!

 

[Bitek]

I see some people saying the Repubs will replace with something similar to Obamacare.

I haven't seen that in the news. Any linkage?

Here's a good roundup

http://www.vox.com/2016/11/17/13626438/obamacare-replacement-plans-comparison

First ask yourself "what is Obamacare?"

Nothing presented is a radical rethink. Rs will be penned in by the fact many aspects of Obamacare are popular, radical change is hard, and there is fatigue over this issue.

Most importantly, there are only so many ways to do a private HC system and keep the ban on preexisting conditions exclusions.