What's in the Senate health care bill?

[AM64]

I guess we'll never know if it would've worked since nobody has the stones to make those people pay the penalty if they don't get insured. The whole thing is a pyramid scheme where you have to have a bunch of people on the bottom layer paying in without taking much of anything out. Bernie Madoff could've made it work.

ObamaCare probably would have a better chance of success with Madoff at the helm than the government. Throw in some mafia types to enforce the penalties and you never know.

What we have to face up to is the concept of personal responsibility, and some people need to quit trying to force everyone else to take care of those who won't take care of themselves.

 

[armchair]

Wow, some people really are dumber than a bag of rocks! What does McConnell think is going to happen when senators go home to face the hatred spewed by the Soros inspired "demonstrations", and the lib press work them over with slanted "news" stories? BAAAD timing.

sick and disabled people rely on Medicaid? You think cutting Medicaid by a third over time is not going to hurt many families in this country. I can only hope that you fall into a situation that requires Medicaid help--it might change your callous perspective. The fake demonstrators are actually real people with real health issues, smart guy.

This isn't the GOP's signature issue at all. Republicans have NO signature issue beyond giving tax breaks and other benefits to the wealthy and big corporations. That is IT, fellas. They don't believe in redistribution; they have no empathy for the less fortunate. A small number of Republican governors and other pols do realize that drastic social-service cuts will have disastrous consequences for their states, and that is one reason why they've struggled to formulate their own plan. They HAVE NO PLAN--they've never had a plan outside of undoing everything Obama did in eight years. Mitch McConnell, Mr. Jowly Face, has apparently warned Trump that if the GOP does not pass Trumpcare, they'll have to--get this--COMPROMISE with the Democrats on health care.

Hello! Our Congress is SUPPOSED to compromise--that is why they are in Washington. But the GOP does not want to compromise. They know their plan will be detrimental to huge numbers of people--and this is why they lie and obfuscate and say stupid things when asked about the bill. They pretend that $800 Billion in Medicaid cuts aren't actually cuts. The new line that Paul Ryan is peddling is that having a choice not to buy health insurance is actually a great thing! It's like a buying a hat, apparently--except that if if you don't buy a hat and the wind blows, nothing really adverse happens to you. If you don't have health insurance and you get sick, you go bankrupt and the premiums for everyone skyrocket even more. The GOP has no acceptable plan--for anything, really.

Let's think about the GOP: It doesn't really like workers. It opposes any and all efforts to pay workers fairly--fiercely opposes unions, fiercely opposes raising the minimum wage, opposes the very concept of consumer protection--so what if there is corruption or unethical behavior by companies (which is rampant). It supports any and all efforts to stiff workers on overtime and benefits; has moved in many states to reduce unemployment and disability payments, loves layoffs (good for those stock prices). You get the idea.

And then, when time comes to consider government programs to help the poor and needy, Republicans can't IMAGINE why there are people who don't have much money! WHY do these poor people need government help, they ask. They must be bums! Can't they get buy on $8 or $10 an hour (in 2017)? They must be lying around the house snorting coke! Government assistance programs must be chopped! The rich--poor folks--need tax breaks!

Nope. Ninety percent of the poor work--they just can't make any money, thanks in part to Republicans and their greedy corporate cohorts--a few of whom now head Trump agencies. So Republicans work actively to stiff people coming and going. If Republicans had their way, there'd be rioting in the streets. If Trump had any rocks, he'd tell the GOP to sit down with the Democrats on health care and compromise. That's the idea of good government.

 

[GAVol]

They don't believe in redistribution; they have no empathy for the less fortunate.

How many socialist economies do you have to see fall on their face to understand that empathy via redistribution is unworkable? You eventually reach a point where you disincentivize production to the point that you run out of other people's money.

 

[T-TownVol]

how many socialist economies do you have to see fall on their face to understand that this belief that the only way to show empathy is via redistribution just never works?

Why do you guys bother trying to reason with chair?

 

[GAVol]

Why do you guys bother trying to reason with chair?

I figure he'll eventually develop carpal tunnel syndrome typing those epistle length tirades.

 

[T-TownVol]

I figure he'll eventually develop carpal tunnel syndrome typing those epistle length tirades.

You assume he is actually writing those himself?

 

[VolStrom]

You morons pretend like the only two options are to let Obamacare fail or go with the senate or house plans. You are ignoring the best option, which is to make the fixes to Obamacare.

I'm still waiting on the Democrats to offer up a plan to fix Obama care. Where is it? It's not like they can't do anything because they don't have the majority. They can still offer a bill, it may not get any majority support, but they can offer one.
So far all they can say is "resist".

 

[GAVol]

You assume he is actually writing those himself?

They definitely have a CNTL+V feel to them.

 

[PKT_VOL]

I'm still waiting on the Democrats to offer up a plan to fix Obama care. Where is it? It's not like they can't do anything because they don't have the majority. They can still offer a bill, it may not get any majority support, but they can offer one.
So far all they can say is "resist".

Most have suggested reintroducing the risk corridors that have since been stripped from the original bill.

 

[VolStrom]

Most have suggested reintroducing the risk corridors that have since been stripped from the original bill.

What are the "risk corridors"?

 

[hog88]

What are the "risk corridors"?

I-65 in Nashville during rush hour.

 

[PKT_VOL]

What are the "risk corridors"?

It was a convoluted risk aversion system built into Obamacare that allowed insurance companies/polices in high risk areas/regions to be off-set by profits from insurance companies/policies in profitable, low risk areas.

Off the top of my head, I believe it was stripped by Marco Rubio in an amendment to a rushed budget bill.

Anyways, a lot of Democrats feel that such lead to the death spiral. In other words, the current death sprial is illegitimate.

 

[Grand Vol]

I-65 in Nashville during rush hour.

I was thinking the I40/I240 east merger in OKC myself.

 

[vol66]

Interesting thread with a good debate. The thing that gets me is that there are lots of countries that do things differently and have systems which seem to work better, that are more transparent, less red tape and have as good if not better outcomes.

It's disappointing that the debate ends up being vitriolic and it would be nice for the scare tactics to stop, on both sides.

When the ACA was debated all the talk was of death panels, and for all it's faults that didn't happen.

In fact, if the new bill ends up throwing millions of people OFF of insurance, isn't that a death panel of sorts?

There's no reason we can't have both public and private choices. Some countries, like Switzerland mandate a basic plan, it can be augmented with other public or private plans. Other countries have different systems...one interesting idea is caps...not like the insurance companies in the US do, caps on what patients have to pay for services and medicine, that's a good idea. There are a lot of good ideas out there.

We have far too many people that are going broke due to illness or end of life care, I think everyone can agree there.

 

[hog88]

Interesting thread with a good debate. The thing that gets me is that there are lots of countries that do things differently and have systems which seem to work better, that are more transparent, less red tape and have as good if not better outcomes.

It's disappointing that the debate ends up being vitriolic and it would be nice for the scare tactics to stop, on both sides.

When the ACA was debated all the talk was of death panels, and for all it's faults that didn't happen.

In fact, if the new bill ends up throwing millions of people OFF of insurance, isn't that a death panel of sorts?

There's no reason we can't have both public and private choices. Some countries, like Switzerland mandate a basic plan, it can be augmented with other public or private plans. Other countries have different systems...one interesting idea is caps...not like the insurance companies in the US do, caps on what patients have to pay for services and medicine, that's a good idea. There are a lot of good ideas out there.

We have far too many people that are going broke due to illness or end of life care, I think everyone can agree there.

If they would have just stopped with an individual mandate to have a catastrophic plan (don't agree with mandates) and not try to include coverage for everything else, it might have worked. But no, we can't do that in this country because when people go to the doctor they don't expect to pay anything but a small co-pay.

 

[GAVol]

If they would have just stopped with an individual mandate to have a catastrophic plan (don't agree with mandates) and not try to include coverage for everything else, it might have worked. But no, we can't do that in this country because when people go to the doctor they don't expect to pay anything but a small co-pay.

Tying healthcare and tax withholding to people's paycheck is the root of this imo. People seriously have no clue what things cost in real dollars.

 

[PKT_VOL]

Interesting thread with a good debate. The thing that gets me is that there are lots of countries that do things differently and have systems which seem to work better, that are more transparent, less red tape and have as good if not better outcomes.

It's disappointing that the debate ends up being vitriolic and it would be nice for the scare tactics to stop, on both sides.

When the ACA was debated all the talk was of death panels, and for all it's faults that didn't happen.

In fact, if the new bill ends up throwing millions of people OFF of insurance, isn't that a death panel of sorts?

There's no reason we can't have both public and private choices. Some countries, like Switzerland mandate a basic plan, it can be augmented with other public or private plans. Other countries have different systems...one interesting idea is caps...not like the insurance companies in the US do, caps on what patients have to pay for services and medicine, that's a good idea. There are a lot of good ideas out there.

We have far too many people that are going broke due to illness or end of life care, I think everyone can agree there.

Are death panels, whether bureaucrats allocating resources or those who fall through the cracks with no insurance, inherently wrong?

 

[vol66]

If they would have just stopped with an individual mandate to have a catastrophic plan (don't agree with mandates) and not try to include coverage for everything else, it might have worked. But no, we can't do that in this country because when people go to the doctor they don't expect to pay anything but a small co-pay.

Without getting into details, that hasn't been my experience.

 

[lawgator1]

I'm leaning that way myself, **** it and let it collapse.

Dems to blame for the initial POS and the Rs for not having a ****ing plan after 7 years of trying to repeal the original.

Too late. You promise to repeal and replace. Republicans now own health care in this country, especially because they control both houses of Congress and the White House.

 

[hog88]

Tying healthcare and tax withholding to people's paycheck is the root of this imo. People seriously have no clue what things cost in real dollars.

The Rs don't have the balls to do it but here's my simple plan.

1. Since the individual mandate is legal per SCOTUS, use it and require everyone purchase aat a minimum a catastrophic plan. Something like a 15k deductible and a 90/10 split after.

2. Encourage health savings accounts by making contributions tax free with no limit or a limit double your deductible.

3. If a provider accepts Medicare/Medicaid they must post their rates per service.

 

[hog88]

Too late. You promise to repeal and replace. Republicans now own health care in this country, especially because they control both houses of Congress and the White House.

I agree with you. They shot their damn mouths off for 7 years, they should have had a plan ready to go day 1.

 

[vol66]

Are death panels, whether bureaucrats allocating resources or those who fall through the cracks with no insurance, inherently wrong?

I haven't given it a lot of thought, but yeah seems at least like the wrong starting point. Seems like the starting point should be how can anyone that is sick have a way of getting care that won't end up with them being destitute.

 

[lawgator1]

The Rs don't have the balls to do it but here's my simple plan.

1. Since the individual mandate is legal per SCOTUS, use it and require everyone purchase aat a minimum a catastrophic plan. Something like a 15k deductible and a 90/10 split after.

2. Encourage health savings accounts by making contributions tax free with no limit or a limit double your deductible.

3. If a provider accepts Medicare/Medicaid they must post their rates per service.

Two and three make no sense.

First of all, people aren't going to contribute to a health care plan if their health care is already mandated to be paid for either by the government or at a loss for the provider and ultimately the rest of us.

If we are going to have insurance, but mandate that people get services even if they don't have insurance, the only solution is to have everyone have insurance. You can do it through Obamacare, or you can do it through single-payer. But you can't have people voluntarily pay into a system when they can still get the service even if they don't.

As two number three, if they accept Medicaid and Medicare, then you can find out what they're getting for that because it is regulated and there are specific reimbursements for specific services.

 

[Grand Vol]

Too late. You promise to repeal and replace. Republicans now own health care in this country, especially because they control both houses of Congress and the White House.

I agree. But with one caveat...

Obamacare passed under highly suspicious methods. And almost didn't pass the House. One thing I'll give Nancy Pelosi credit for was getting the votes for it to pass.

This time? You don't have a party in lockstep behind a single idea. Which would be a good thing if the art of compromise was still around. But since it's been lost over the past 20 years, pretty much everything is doomed to failure.

 

[AM64]

It was a convoluted risk aversion system built into Obamacare that allowed insurance companies/polices in high risk areas/regions to be off-set by profits from insurance companies/policies in profitable, low risk areas.

Off the top of my head, I believe it was stripped by Marco Rubio in an amendment to a rushed budget bill.

Anyways, a lot of Democrats feel that such lead to the death spiral. In other words, the current death sprial is illegitimate.

Another reason to take amendments, riders, etc away from congress. One topic, one bill in clear concise English - complete with names of authors and sponsors. No confusion about who was for or against something, or why things that should never have seen the light of day were passed. Harder, too, to hide paybacks to campaign donors.