Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[chipwhich]

Yeah they need the exchanges to work so the uninsured will up rise at the next election because of the expensive tax laid in their lap.  Taxation without Coverage.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/in-rural-kentucky-health-care-debate-takes-back-seat-as-people-sign-up-for-insurance/2013/11/23/449dc6e0-5465-11e3-9e2c-e1d01116fd98_story.html

 

 

 

In rural Kentucky, health-care debate takes back seat as the long-uninsured line up

 

 

in BREATHITT COUNTY, Ky. — On the campaign trail, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was still blasting the new health-care law as unsalvageable. At the White House, President Obama was still apologizing for the botched federal Web site.

 

But in a state where the rollout has gone smoothly, and in a county that is one of the poorest and unhealthiest in the country, Courtney Lively has been busy signing people up: cashiers from the IGA grocery, clerks from the dollar store, workers from the lock factory, call-center agents, laid-off coal miners, KFC cooks, Chinese green-card holders in town to teach Appalachian students.

 

Edited November 24, 2013 by BRAVEONAWARPATH

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Yeah they need the exchanges to work so the uninsured will up rise at the next election because of the expensive tax laid in their lap.  Taxation without Coverage.

  

propaganda from the pet media to frame the debate

 

I'd say they need the exchanges to work so people can see how much ACA sucks

Just didn't read it at all, huh?

[twa]

Why yes I did read it all,the real question is did Ezra write it or just submit what the administration gave him.

[chipwhich]

  

Just didn't read it at all, huh?

 

I read it.

I don't see how politics twisted this debate.  Maybe you can explain it better to me.

Also, understand I want to be able to retire and get on some cheap GOOD health insurance.  I don't care whose plan it is.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I read it.

I don't see how politics twisted this debate.  Maybe you can explain it better to me.

Also, understand I want to be able to retire and get on some cheap GOOD health insurance.  I don't care whose plan it is.

 

The fact that Obamacare is what Paul Ryan proposed originally. The fact that Obamacare was originally proposed by the Heritage Foundation as a conservative answer to health care reform.  And the fact that now, republicans don't offer anything different because this is what they wanted in the first place.

 

Couple that with the fact that the complaints are not whether the system of Obamacare will work, but whether the website will work.

 

It is obvious that this is nothing but politics by the GOP, and not a real attempt to improve healthcare.

 

As you get older, you will not be able to get "cheap and good" health care from any private for-profit insurance company because you are a liability as you get older and sicker.  You will need government healthcare.

[JMS]

Republicans need Obamacare’s exchanges to work

http://wapo.st/1enSJ3G

I think this article is very important to this debate. It talks about the two debates in health care and points out how politics, and nothing else, twisted this debate. It also demonstrates that Republicans do have ideas on half care, but have abandoned them for the purpose of political expediency.

 

 

 

Ahhh,   Bush passed Medicare Part D healthcare reform for 800 billion in his second term...   Cost roughly the same as Obamacare but just didn't do anything.   Also ,you do know the affordable care act was first proposed by the republicans don't you?   It is one of the GOP's ideas... thought up by the Heritage Foundation,  first proposed by Nixon.   Implemented on the sate level by Romney.

 

It's not that the Republicans don't have any ideas... It's that they don't have any good ideas,  at leas not for several decades..

[chipwhich]

The fact that Obamacare is what Paul Ryan proposed originally.

It's not that the Republicans don't have any ideas... It's that they don't have any good ideas,  at leas not for several decades..

 

 

Is this what the democrats new strategy is?  Oh it wasn't our idea, it was all the republican idea we just implemented a stupid idea?

That's pretty pathetic.

As I don't dance around with a party hat on I just discuss the matter at hand, I really don't know the details of the Ryan plan, nor did I know the details of the Obamacare plan (although some have claimed they read the legal mumbo jumbo and understood it since it was discussed) I do know that as pen has met paper, and implementation of what was on paper now brings truisms to what was proposed, the current Obamacare isn't looking so good.  Now if you democrats claim it's the exact same plan, then why was a new plan written?  Why didn't they implement the heritage foundation plan?

Is it because the democrats don't have any ideas?  Is it because it wouldn't have then been a "democratic" plan and been a "mandate" of the people like some claim on here and is why Obama got reelected.

Y'all play politics and try and make excuses.

Meanwhile we have a mess on our hands.

Edited November 25, 2013 by chipwhich

[Corcaigh]

The USA is doing just fine ... no need for ACA to try to fix it.

 

[Tulane Skins Fan]

 

 

 

Is this what the democrats new strategy is?  Oh it wasn't our idea, it was all the republican idea we just implemented a stupid idea?

That's pretty pathetic.

As I don't dance around with a party hat on I just discuss the matter at hand, I really don't know the details of the Ryan plan, nor did I know the details of the Obamacare plan (although some have claimed they read the legal mumbo jumbo and understood it since it was discussed) I do know that as pen has met paper, and implementation of what was on paper now brings truisms to what was proposed, the current Obamacare isn't looking so good.  Now if you democrats claim it's the exact same plan, then why was a new plan written?  Why didn't they implement the heritage foundation plan?

Is it because the democrats don't have any ideas?  Is it because it wouldn't have then been a "democratic" plan and been a "mandate" of the people like some claim on here and is why Obama got reelected.

Y'all play politics and try and make excuses.

Meanwhile we have a mess on our hands.

 

 

Totally missed the point again.  Is it on purpose?

 

Who said the ACA was a disaster?  Or a "stupid idea?"  I did not.  I did not say "this is the republican's fault."  What I said was that this was a republican idea first because that's a fact.  And that there is now nothing but a political attempt by the republicans to point out its shortcomings.

 

At least you admitted you didn't click the link and read Ryan's plan, which is basically Obamacare.

[chipwhich]

Totally missed the point again.  Is it on purpose?

 

Who said the ACA was a disaster?  Or a "stupid idea?"  I did not.  I did not say "this is the republican's fault."  What I said was that this was a republican idea first because that's a fact.  And that there is now nothing but a political attempt by the republicans to point out its shortcomings.

 

At least you admitted you didn't click the link and read Ryan's plan, which is basically Obamacare.

 

Are you a litigator?  LOL  I know I know you already established that to me.  And this sentence is purely in fun.

 

I am sorry I combined my response to you and JMS who is somehow making this a republican problem/solution even though the democrats implemented it..

 

As far as the link, I did read the link, I also went out and read Ryan's "Short Summary" on his page.

It sounds similar, but as always the devil is in the details, and my point I was trying to make above is when implementation becomes reality, only then do we see the details.  Now we see what Obamacare is really getting us.

You didn't answer my question, if the ACA is the same as Ryan's plan, why did we waste all the taxpayer money to write the ACA?

Edited November 25, 2013 by chipwhich

[JMS]

As you get older, you will not be able to get "cheap and good" health care from any private for-profit insurance company because you are a liability as you get older and sicker.  You will need government healthcare.

 

That's the thing people don't realize....   Yeah today you can buy an inexpensive policy, but the problem is when you get really sick that policy probable won't help you much.    They can deny you for preexisting conditions,  not  all types of issues are covered by all policies,  some policies are cap'ed per year or per life time,  and then even if it does cover you they can jack up your monthly bill so you can't afford to keep your coverage.

 

Today Healthcare costs are the #1 cause cited in Bankrupcies even for people with insurance.    So if you are happy with you're plan chances are it's because you haven't had to relly on that plan.

[JMS]

 

 

 

Is this what the democrats new strategy is?  Oh it wasn't our idea, it was all the republican idea we just implemented a stupid idea?

That's pretty pathetic.

 

I think you got that wrong.   The democrats aren't going around saying this republican idea was a stupid plan...

The Republicans are calling the "Affordable Care Act"  comunism, socialism, and end to the free market,  or government controled healthcare.    The Democrats are pointing out that this act is extremely modest, conservative plan, first proposed by a conservative think tank,  and first proposed nationally by Nixon, and first implemented on the state level by a self described severely conservative Governor of Massachusetts Romney.     Which pretty much tells you this is (1)  not a radical plan.  (2)  not a plan with huge upside.

 

It is a modest attempt to cover most of the 50 million Americans who live without insurance while making sure the insurance actually works when you need it.     There are very modest cost controls built into the ACA.    Taken alltogether it's supposed to save us 1 trillion over the first 10 years right... Only we are going to spend 40 trillion in healthcare over those ten years as a nation.    So 1 trillion is very very modest.

 

At it's core it's a reform to our existing system which is severely broken.   

 

Are their better ideas in the Democratic party.  Absolutely.. a single payer system is performing much better in most industrialized countries in the world.  Better outcomes,  and significantly more effiencet way to handle healthcare delivery.    The left wing of the Democratic party was touting single player solution.  Only nobody listens to the left wing of the democratic pary.  Obama choose to implement the much more conservative, less ambitious reform and then had to bascially fight the same battle he would have if he had gone with the more ambitious total solution of single player. 

Edited November 25, 2013 by JMS

[chipwhich]

That's the thing people don't realize....   Yeah today you can buy an inexpensive policy, but the problem is when you get really sick that policy probable won't help you much.    They can deny you for preexisting conditions,  not  all types of issues are covered by all policies,  some policies are cap'ed per year or per life time,  and then even if it does cover you they can jack up your monthly bill so you can't afford to keep your coverage.

 

Today Healthcare costs are the #1 cause cited in Bankrupcies even for people with insurance.    So if you are happy with you're plan chances are it's because you haven't had to relly on that plan.

 

Everyone realizes this, that's why there is health care reform in the first place. 

 

Tulane, I know "cheap and good" isn't easily attainable.

My POINT was I am going to end up on some form of health care.  ASSUMING it's something like Obamacare, I want it to work.  I want to get cheap and good insurance and ride out my retirement on the government dole.  I am not on the Government employee payroll, or some big union, or some old stoic company that gives their employees health care for life.

I have to pay for mine.

So if I am going to have to get on Obamacare at some point, i want it to be something worth getting on.  Which means I should be able to afford coverage, not just get catastrophe insurance to protect me against JMS and bankruptcy.

[JMS]

The USA is doing just fine ... no need for ACA to try to fix it.

 

 

 

So you should have put a sarcasm smilie there.     

Edited November 25, 2013 by JMS

[JMS]

Everyone realizes this, that's why there is health care reform in the first place. 

 

Yeah there are like 15 major problems with the US healthcare system.   The ACA addresses like two.   It is a very modest reform which is endorsed by the insurance companies because it's a huge payday for them.

 

The affordable care act will ensure your plan will cover you when you get sick (check).   It also ensures that you can get insurance even if you are sick(check).    It very very modestly addresses the huge inefficiencies in out system;  and for these benifits the ACA mandates everybody carry health insurance which pumps some 20-30 million more consumers into the marketplace.

 

Next up is trying ot tackle the out of whack costs of the system.    as much as 50% of every healthcare dollar spent is wasted.    Per capita we pay about twice as much as the next comparable country even though we don't even cover 50 million folks.   On the other hand their are comparable countries which pay 20% of what we pay per capita...   By the WHO's ranking of healthcare delivery we rank between Costa Rica and Cuba  which are both 1 or more orders of magnatude more efficient than our healthcare system for what the WHO considers comparable results..

Edited November 25, 2013 by JMS

[twa]

ya'll think ACA will reduce spending healthcare dollars?....seriously?

[JMS]

So if I am going to have to get on Obamacare at some point, i want it to be something worth getting on.  Which means I should be able to afford coverage, not just get catastrophe insurance to protect me against JMS and bankruptcy.

 

Yes if only somebody passed a law requiring folks selling insurance too describe their policies in ways which made them easier to compare.    And then created a online marketplace which would allow you to compare services provided by cost across all the insurance companies for your state...   And then allowed you as an individual to purchase that insurance and not require you to be part of a huge Union, Government organization,  or  large company in order to get a reasonable plan at a reasonable cost and your plan wouldn't evaporate when you needed it most.

ya'll think ACA will reduce spending healthcare dollars?....seriously?

 

 

The Congressional Budget office Says it will reduce the growth of healthcare costs and save us trillions...  which is very modest compared with what we spend and what we could be saving.

 

According to the CBO the ACA is already saving us money and will continue to do so every year over the next several decades.

 

Obamacare and deficits: Reality check

http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/28/news/economy/obamacare-deficits/

 

Fact Check: Repealing Obamacare adds to deficit  - TRUE

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/25/fact-check-repealing-obamacare-adds-to-deficit/

Edited November 25, 2013 by JMS

[chipwhich]

Yes if only somebody passed a law requiring folks selling insurance too describe their policies in ways which made them easier to compare.    And then created a online marketplace which would allow you to compare services provided by cost across all the insurance companies for your state...   And then allowed you as an individual to purchase that insurance and not require you to be part of a huge Union, Government organization,  or  large company in order to get a reasonable plan at a reasonable cost and your plan wouldn't evaporate when you needed it most.

But JMS, as the benefits purchaser for my personal business, I can say that the information that is provided on the marketplace doesnt really provide purchasers the information they need to fully understand what they are buying.  I have a benefits broker that gives the important details.  The devil is in the details, not that comparison spreadsheet that is on the marketplace.

[twa]

 

 

The Congressional Budget office Says it will reduce the growth of healthcare costs and save us trillions...  which is very modest compared with what we spend and what we could be saving.

 

The CBO necessarily makes a number of assumptions.....how many quirks are already impacting those figures ?

[Larry]

Is this what the democrats new strategy is?  Oh it wasn't our idea, it was all the republican idea we just implemented a stupid idea?

That's pretty pathetic.

I would agree, If I saw somebody try8ng to argue that "well, if you're mad about Obamacare, you should be mad at the Republicans, cause they did it."

(Although, the counter argument that the Republicans had absolutely zero effect on it whatsoever, in fact, the continuing attempt to complain that they never even saw or debated it, is, well, let's just say it's roughly equally true.)

But I'm not seeing people try to make that claim.

I see people trying to claim that the Republican refrain that this is a treasonous nationalization of the health care industry, and the worst thing done to the country since Social Security, and a socialist takeover, is simply political theater. (Which it pretty much is.)

ya'll think ACA will reduce spending healthcare dollars?....seriously?

Reduce? Absolutely not. Nothing will reduce health care spending. (Well, maybe a program of killing everybody in the country when they turn 70, or something equally impossible.)

Will it result in spending that's lower than it would have been, without it?

I suppose there's a slim chance. But I'm sure not counting on it.

[chipwhich]

I would agree, If I saw somebody try8ng to argue that "well, if you're mad about Obamacare, you should be mad at the Republicans, cause they did it."

(Although, the counter argument that the Republicans had absolutely zero effect on it whatsoever, in fact, the continuing attempt to complain that they never even saw or debated it, is, well, let's just say it's roughly equally true.)

But I'm not seeing people try to make that claim.

I see people trying to claim that the Republican refrain that this is a treasonous nationalization of the health care industry, and the worst thing done to the country since Social Security, and a socialist takeover, is simply political theater. (Which it pretty much is.)

 

I simply asked.  I see no reason why the topic was brought up.  JMS and Tulane brought it up with different angles.  Semantic Larry can tell me how he interpreted the postings and I will tell you how I interpret it.

 

I do like your continued use of emotional words to try and protect your part.  Now that is treasonous.

Meanwhile, back to Obamacare.

[Larry]

Tulane, I know "cheap and good" isn't easily attainable.

I'm not 100% certain that it's impossible.

I've been saying for years that I think what's needed, in a perfect world, would be a single payer, national, taxpayer-paid, basic health care coverage.

Something that would cover things like doctor visits when you have a cold. X rays. Blood tests. Diagnostics. The kinds of things that I assume are done at urgent care centers.

Basics.

 

And let the private insurance industry compete to sell coverage that takes over, after the basic coverage stops covering.  Medicare supplement coverage, so to speak. 

 

I would assume that something like that would be pretty cheap, because I assume that those aren't the big ticket items that drive up the cost averages. 

 

I could also see a single payer system offering several advantages to that kind of care.  It would mean that everybody would accept that insurance (since that's the insurance that 100% of the people have.)  Providers in that segment of the business would have only one set of (hopefully minimalist) billing procedures to deal with.  (Hopefully cutting down on the administrative overhead, which I suspect is a major part of health care costs.)  Hopefully, it would lead to such care being available on short notice. 

 

Unfortunately, I'm not sure something like that would work, in the real world.  The threat that I see is that, if something like that goes into effect, everybody in the world is gonna be leaning on the government to add more and more things to the universal coverage.  (Should electric scooters be covered?  I can see some arguments in favor of it.  And so forth.) 

 

Everybody.  Providers, the insurance companies, the voters.  Everybody will want this plan to cover everything. 

 

The result on Congress, of all of those special interests all pulling in the same direction, is predictable. 

 

But, I think it would be a great idea, in theory. 

----------

 

I simply asked.  I see no reason why the topic was brought up.  JMS and Tulane brought it up with different angles.  Semantic Larry can tell me how he interpreted the postings and I will tell you how I interpret it.

 

I do like your continued use of emotional words to try and protect your part.  Now that is treasonous.

Meanwhile, back to Obamacare.

 

Ah, got it. 

 

I'm Semantic Larry, and you "simply asked". 

[JMS]

The CBO necessarily makes a number of assumptions.....how many quirks are already impacting those figures ?

 

The CBO is the gold standard for estimating costs of programs.   The annual costs estimated for the Affordable Care act has not changed significantly since it was first addressed by the CBO.    The ACA was entirely paid for by the Obama administration according to the CBO and that has remained the case.  When Republicans were attempting to shut down the ACA,  the CBO told them they would need to bring money to the table because the ACA is saving us money today, even in it's innitial years.  Those savings are projected to escalate in future years.  In it's second decade those savings will ammoujnt to more than a trillion dollars according to the CBO.

Edited November 25, 2013 by JMS

[KuNiT21]

Well good thing Donna Brazile knows what's wrong with Obamacare......

 

"The Biggest Problem With Obamacares Rollout Is Being Caused Intentionally by Republicans" via twitter