Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anything can be fixed if there is a will, something as enourmous and critical as health care should be addressed by both parties. Reapealing health care without a viable replacement lacks basic common sense.
You're right but that would take ideologues on BOTH sides to knock it off and put the people AND the country over pandering to one group or another AND kicking special interests out of the room.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nanny Goat
Tide has turned. For many Americans, health care is seen more as a right than a privilege and I don't think it'll be easy to step back from that idea.
And that was the main idea behind passing Obamacare. In my mind it's always been somewhat a right given the "no turn away" laws in place (medical care cannot be denied due to lack of insurance or payment, legal status etc) and that one should not let another human die in an emergency situation just because they can't afford care or got here the wrong way.
The question to be settled is exactly how much of "a right" it really is or should be and a big part of the equation has to be how much we can afford in national debt and exactly who gets covered.
Is everyone good with potentially doubling ++ the national debt and/or handing out free healthcare to anyone who has two feet in our country legally or not?
There wouldn't be any riots and the Republican congress knows it. Block granting itself is a recipe for disaster. For one thing the grants will only increase at the rate of the increase in health care costs for a few years, then it will be reduced to the CPI-W, so if healthcare costs went up 10% but the CPI-W went up 2% block grants would lose 8% of their funding and that would compound in subsequent years. And before you think that states will even do the right thing for their citizens you should look at the example of what they did with TANF (welfare) money when that was block granted, there are 14 states who spend less than 10% of the block grant money on direct benefits to the poor, a number of states use large amounts of the block grant money to balance their budget. The block grant would provide $243 billion less between 2020 and 2026 than projected federal spending for the Medicaid expansion and marketplace subsidies under current law. In 2026, block grant funding would be at least $41 billion (17 percent) below projected levels under the ACA.
None of that probably impresses you because you probably don't even know anyone on medicaid, but with rising costs of long term care many of us who have planned well and saved diligently may well find themselves being supported by medicaid if they end up in a nursing home. A relative of mine burned through a million dollars in 9 years of long term care. She didn't expect to live past 100, who does? The other more immediate impact will be working class families who care for their family members in their homes, that is an optional medicaid program and will be one of the first to go when the block grant money is cut.
Actually I do, so there goes that theory. How did people afford all of this prior to Obamacare? Did they all just crawl off to a cave and die? Hmmmm?
If you're so skeptical of the States "doing the right thing" what the hell makes you think the Feds will do any better? Does the VA ring any bells and why is it you're not hearing chants of "VA INSURANCE FOR ALL"?
Think of it another way, who do you have better odds of contacting and getting a large enough group to sway policy, the State or the Feds?
Actually I do, so there goes that theory. How did people afford all of this prior to Obamacare? Did they all just crawl off to a cave and die? Hmmmm?
If you're so skeptical of the States "doing the right thing" what the hell makes you think the Feds will do any better? Does the VA ring any bells and why is it you're not hearing chants of "VA INSURANCE FOR ALL"?
Think of it another way, who do you have better odds of contacting and getting a large enough group to sway policy, the State or the Feds?
Many people were not affording it before ACA, you forget that we had a mess before ACA, even Repubs admitted something needed to be done, they just have no clue what to do? Oh, and going back is no longer an option since many companies have now dropped providing healthcare benefits, no they did not pass on their savings in the way of raising salaries, funny that......
Few are asking for VA for all, what most want is more along Medicare for everyone, and Medicare does work, and even the insurance industry gets their cut because of supplemental coverage needs. That is where we are headed, even the Repub Leaders know it, they just do not want to admit it after whining for years about ACA.
Many people were not affording it before ACA, you forget that we had a mess before ACA, even Repubs admitted something needed to be done, they just have no clue what to do? Oh, and going back is no longer an option since many companies have now dropped providing healthcare benefits, no they did not pass on their savings in the way of raising salaries, funny that......
Few are asking for VA for all, what most want is more along Medicare for everyone, and Medicare does work, and even the insurance industry gets their cut because of supplemental coverage needs. That is where we are headed, even the Repub Leaders know it, they just do not want to admit it after whining for years about ACA.
Complaining about huge increases in premium and deductibles is not whining. The ACA is a terrible program and if it were a Republican program you would be "whining" about it instead of trying to justify it.
Given the fact that the two parties cannot give ground, I am becoming increasingly fond of Single Payer. The Devil is in the details, of course, but it seems to me that Single Payer (Single Insurer) would solve an awful lot of problems. For right now, though the term "Single Payer" is used to frighten people. It does frighten insurance companies. They were the big winners with ACA and would be the big losers with Single Payer.
Single Payer: One insurer covers all of America. We pay our own premiums in some way, and all coverage for all Americans is the same. Supplemental policies will be available.
It may take a long time, but I think that's where we are headed.
Many people were not affording it before ACA, you forget that we had a mess before ACA, even Repubs admitted something needed to be done, they just have no clue what to do? Oh, and going back is no longer an option since many companies have now dropped providing healthcare benefits, no they did not pass on their savings in the way of raising salaries, funny that......
Few are asking for VA for all, what most want is more along Medicare for everyone, and Medicare does work, and even the insurance industry gets their cut because of supplemental coverage needs. That is where we are headed, even the Repub Leaders know it, they just do not want to admit it after whining for years about ACA.
I guess we'll eventually see. I'm betting there's going to be at least another year of Obamacare pain before anything starts happening.
I see where the Senate Republicans are 'tweaking' the proposed bill in order to obtain the votes of Senators Murkowski (Alaska) and Collins (Maine), mainly by boosting the money slated for those two states.
I believe that this action may cause one or two more Republican Senators to defect from the ranks, perhaps using the reasoning that they can't be part of 'bribing' the two named senators, or objecting to two states (actually, three, since Kentucky, home to the Senate Majority leader, also gets a boost), receiving special consideration, etc.
I believe that some of the Republican Senators have no problem with voting 'for' the bill, if they believe it will not pass. If they think it may pass, they may look for an 'honorable' way to back out. It is akin to the House version: the more they tried to tilt the bill to one side to satisfy one group, another group tilted away from supporting it. It was a failed balancing act, and I imagine the same will occur in the Senate.
Actually I do, so there goes that theory. How did people afford all of this prior to Obamacare? Did they all just crawl off to a cave and die? Hmmmm?
If you're so skeptical of the States "doing the right thing" what the hell makes you think the Feds will do any better? Does the VA ring any bells and why is it you're not hearing chants of "VA INSURANCE FOR ALL"?
Think of it another way, who do you have better odds of contacting and getting a large enough group to sway policy, the State or the Feds?
The VA actually does a pretty good job, their issues have been with poor administration, it does not reflect a fault in the system itself. But why don't you do this, start a poll on these forums and ask Vets to vote as to whether or not they want to eliminate VA healthcare?
How did 'all these people afford healthcare before the ACA'? They didn't have healthcare, they went to ER's. Why would I even have to tell you that?
"Prior research examining the magnitude of uncompensated care costs estimates that the uninsured used in the range of $56 to $73 billion dollars of health care that they did not pay for in 2008, with about 2/3 of this amount attributed to hospital care.
On average, uninsured families can only afford to pay in full for about 12% of the admissions to hospital (hospitalizations) they might experience. Even uninsured families with incomes above 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) can afford to pay in full for only 37% of their hospitalizations.
Hospitalizations for which the uninsured cannot pay in full account for 95% of the total amount hospitals bill the uninsured. Even among the uninsured with incomes above 400% FPL, hospitalizations for which the patient would not be able to pay in full account for 64% of the total amount hospitals bill the uninsured" https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/va...hospital-bills
I see where the Senate Republicans are 'tweaking' the proposed bill in order to obtain the votes of Senators Murkowski (Alaska) and Collins (Maine), mainly by boosting the money slated for those two states.
I believe that this action may cause one or two more Republican Senators to defect from the ranks, perhaps using the reasoning that they can't be part of 'bribing' the two named senators, or objecting to two states (actually, three, since Kentucky, home to the Senate Majority leader, also gets a boost), receiving special consideration, etc.
I believe that some of the Republican Senators have no problem with voting 'for' the bill, if they believe it will not pass. If they think it may pass, they may look for an 'honorable' way to back out. It is akin to the House version: the more they tried to tilt the bill to one side to satisfy one group, another group tilted away from supporting it. It was a failed balancing act, and I imagine the same will occur in the Senate.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
It doesn't look like the 'tweaks' changed Rand Paul's mind:
Something here does not ring true. Someone who has been involved in "the roll out of significant business programs" (whatever you mean by that) does not write like a high school drop out.
As to your first comments, no part of Obamacare came by way of "the legislative process." That's why Nancy Pelosi had no idea what was in the bill, nor did anyone else. It was entirely created from the Executive Branch and handed to the Legislature, so that it appeared to be "legal" (all legislation must originate in the Legislative Branch). It is unconstitutional and illegal.
Usually comments as insulting as yours get "stricken from the record." Mine far less insulting certainly do, but I hope yours/mine stays, because we're all adults here I think. Thick enough skin to wade through that sort of nonsense on our own I'm sure. I guess this sort of insult works for you, but I'm not so taken by the high school antics. I know your motive and no doubt that's the overriding factor for you here. So be it...
What I meant is what I wrote. I was involved in directing the roll-out of large business programs (for a large company), in part because I could write a directive business memo, after enough training to do so plenty well enough thank you. Paid handsomely for it too, but the point anyone should be able to understand is that rolling out a program of such large magnitude rarely if ever gets initiated without the need for adjustment and improvement to continue. What is important though, if you want progress, is to get the thing "out the door!"
Beyond our ability to write, I'm surely having trouble understanding your further comment/logic as well.
The ACA is a very significant piece of legislation, a United States federal statute enacted by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. That's what I meant by the legislative process (whether you like it or not), on the books, deemed constitutional as well (also whether you like that or not). The process that leads to legislation becoming law one way or another, as provided by the Constitution of the United States.
I see where the Senate Republicans are 'tweaking' the proposed bill in order to obtain the votes of Senators Murkowski (Alaska) and Collins (Maine), mainly by boosting the money slated for those two states.
That's a pretty 'swampy' approach.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How did people afford all of this prior to Obamacare? Did they all just crawl off to a cave and die? Hmmmm?