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

[killerbee99]

16 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

If by some time, you mean since President Obama passed ACA, they yes I would agree with that.  If you mean that they were more expensive, prior to that, then I would not agree.  My experience is that they were much cheaper before.  So there is your pointer.  I can also say that prior to ACA, I could actually see Doctors.  Now, it's hit and miss and when I do see them, I can't get medications covered.  There is another pointer. 

 

Obamacare, for me, has been terrible.  I pay more now for way less and I don't think that's what we need out of our Government. 

 

So is that the only difference, the Ambulatory Services?  You say there are other essential services and there may well be, I don't know to be honest.  I do agree with your statement that it was not great but then again, I don't see ACA as great either.  I think it's terrible.

This link shows the full services that would have been stripped

 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/03/republicans-may-have-saved-trumpcare-by-making-even-crueler.html

 

Outpatient care without a hospital admission, known as ambulatory patient services

• Emergency services

• Hospitalization

• Pregnancy, maternity, and newborn care

• Mental health and substance use disorder services, including counseling and psychotherapy

• Prescription drugs

• Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices, which help people with injuries and disabilities to recover

• Laboratory services

• Preventive care, wellness services, and chronic disease management

• Pediatric services, including oral and vision care for children

Conservatives loathe these benefits, because they impair the pure free-market function of the insurance system. In their ideal world, people could buy any kind of insurance they want. The most frequentcomplaint about essential health benefits is that it forces men to pay for maternity care. (Literally, this is the best example they can identify of a frivolous benefit Obamacare forces insurers to sell people.) Allowing people to customize their insurance allows them to buy cheaper plans covering only the kinds of medical treatments they want. Eliminating these regulations would make Trumpcare acceptable to the far right and probably, though not certainly, enable its passage through the House.

 

 

Edited March 25, 2017 by killerbee99

[Larry]

2 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

So is that the only difference, the Ambulatory Services?  You say there are other essential services and there may well be, I don't know to be honest.  I do agree with your statement that it was not great but then again, I don't see ACA as great either.  I think it's terrible.

 

NBC: What Are ‘Essential Benefits’ in GOPHealth Care Bill Debate?

 

 

Quote

 

This week marks the seventh anniversary of the Affordable Care Act and Republican leaders in the House of Representatives are taking another day to try to push through their proposed replacement, the American Health Care Act.

 

Some conservatives reject the AHCA as "Obamacare Lite." So one proposal is the removal of Obamacare's "10 Essential Benefits" — the list of things that all health insurance policies taking part in the Obamacare marketplaces must cover. Instead, states could decide what counts as "essential".

 

Here's a rundown of what they are:

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

4 minutes ago, clietas said:

 

Which is why non profit Universal Healthcare is the only option IMO.

 

How exactly are you going to get that thou?   I don't agree that Universal Healthcare is the answer but lets say, for just a moment that it is.  How do you take Insurance Companies out of the equation?  650 Billion, or whatever it is, can not simply be removed.  That would be disastrous for our economy.

Edited March 25, 2017 by ABQCOWBOY

[Captain Wiggles]

1 minute ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

How exactly are you going to get that thou?   I don't agree that Universal Healthcare is the answer but lets say, for just a moment that it is.  How do you take Insurance Companies out of the equation with.  650 Billion, or whatever it is, can not simply be removed.  That would be disastrous for our economy.

 

Stop sending so much money to the Pentagon.

[ABQCOWBOY]

Just now, clietas said:

 

Stop sending so much money to the Pentagon.

 

Well, we've already done that.  I mean, I know you are speaking tongue in cheek here but seriously, I just do not believe you can ever remove Insurance Companies from Healthcare.   We are too far down the path now.  Consequences would be horrific IMO.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

18 hours ago, clietas said:

Haven't Republicans, especially governors, been doing that already? 

 

17 hours ago, twa said:

They should just do whatever cause the Dems want it? 

 

14 hours ago, clietas said:

I thought you liked laws? Oh that's right only certain ones... 

 

11 hours ago, twa said:

According to the court expanding is optional....I thought ya'll liked the court? and states rights lately 

 

@twa And I thought you liked doing whatever a political party tells you to do.

 

Oh that's right only certain ones... 

Edited March 25, 2017 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[Captain Wiggles]

Just now, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

Well, we've already done that.

 

Is that why the defense budget is being increased by $60 Billion? We have all the money in the world it seems for more tanks, planes, ships, bombs, ect. But none for Healthcare?

[mistertim]

3 minutes ago, clietas said:

 

Stop sending so much money to the Pentagon.

 

Nooooooo. The F-35 program MUST stay on track. It is almost to the point where it can turn now. Only another 600 billion and it will be able to fly in the rain.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

6 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

Well, we've already done that.  I mean, I know you are speaking tongue in cheek here but seriously, I just do not believe you can ever remove Insurance Companies from Healthcare.   We are too far down the path now.  Consequences would be horrific IMO.

Every other developed nation on the planet seems to be able to do it. Let's just cut the crap. The reasons we "can't" get it done here are strictly political.

Edited March 25, 2017 by Sacks 'n' Stuff

[ABQCOWBOY]

Just now, clietas said:

 

Is that why the defense budget is being increased by $60 Billion? We have all the money in the world it seems for more tanks, planes, ships, bombs, ect. But none for Healthcare?

 

But, for years that budget has taken hits so while I hear what you are saying, that really has not proven to be an effective answer IMO.  Besides, 60 Billion is not going to make a dent in what it will cost to remove Insurance Companies from the equation.  This is not a discussion about just paying for Single Payer, per say.  It's a much broader discussion because you are removing that from our economy and that would have serious repercussions.   You really can't absorb that kind of hit IMO.

[Larry]

3 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

How exactly are you going to get that thou?   I don't agree that Universal Healthcare is the answer but lets say, for just a moment that it is.  How do you take Insurance Companies out of the equation?  650 Billion, or whatever it is, can not simply be removed.  That would be disastrous for our economy.

 

Well, number one,. that money wouldn't be removed.  It would be shifted.  

 

 

---

 

And I've just had a thought that might be genius but is more likely really stupid.  Concerning "how to get there" with single payer.  

 

I wonder if anybody has done a study concerning the effect of, say, making Medicare start at 55 instead of 65.  

 

Seems like, to me, the private insurance pool would lose the people aged 55-64.  A demographic which, I'd be willing to bet, are their most expensive demographic.  

 

Whereas it would add millions into the government's pool of people who Medicare is paying for.  But it's millions of people who are cheaper, per capita, than the people Medicare is paying for, now.  

[ABQCOWBOY]

Just now, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Every other developed nation on the planet seems to be able to do it. Let's just cut the crap. The reasons we can't get it done here are strictly political.

 

I agree that it is political but it's not just "Political" on one side. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

Just now, ABQCOWBOY said:

I agree that it is political but it's not just "Political" on one side. 

Huh? One side wants it and the other side doesn't.

[mistertim]

On a side note, with the F-35, an interesting article on what we could have spend the estimated $1.45 trillion cost of the program on:

 

http://time.com/money/4310099/f-35-budget-pay-free-college-student-loans/

 

Pretty staggering...and depressing. Though I do have to admit that my favorite one is "Hire Beyonce to play one show every night for over 1,000 years"

[ABQCOWBOY]

1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

Well, number one,. that money wouldn't be removed.  It would be shifted.  

 

 

---

 

And I've just had a thought that might be genius but is more likely really stupid.  Concerning "how to get there" with single payer.  

 

I wonder if anybody has done a study concerning the effect of, say, making Medicare start at 55 instead of 65.  

 

Seems like, to me, the private insurance pool would lose the people aged 55-64.  A demographic which, I'd be willing to bet, are their most expensive demographic.  

 

Whereas it would add millions into the government's pool of people who Medicare is paying for.  But it's millions of people who are cheaper, per capita, than the people Medicare is paying for, now.  

 

Yes, the money would be shifted but I am not so sure that the actual business revenue would be.  If you remove insurance companies, that's a huge part of our economy.  I know you understand this but they employee people.  They put money back into the economy.  I am not sure that you can just take them out.

 

Your second thought is interesting.  I honestly don't know if anybody has seriously looked at that or not.

2 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Huh? One side wants it and the other side doesn't.

 

Are you sure?  I've never heard either side propose an elimination of Insurance Companies.

[Larry]

1 minute ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

Yes, the money would be shifted but I am not so sure that the actual business revenue would be.  If you remove insurance companies, that's a huge part of our economy.  I know you understand this but they employee people.  They put money back into the economy.  I am not sure that you can just take them out.

 

Whereas, of course, the government agency that does the same job will do so completely without any people whatsoever.  

 

However, let's just pretend that the government will employ less people, to do the same job.  

 

Do you really want to argue that you're opposed to single payer health care, because it would waste less of people's health care money on bureaucracy than the insurance companies do?  

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

1 minute ago, Larry said:

 

Whereas, of course, the government agency that does the same job will do so completely without any people whatsoever.  

 

However, let's just pretend that the government will employ less people, to do the same job.  

 

Do you really want to argue that you're opposed to single payer health care, because it would waste less of people's health care money on bureaucracy than the insurance companies do?  

 

 

I don't think I've ever argued that, one way or the other, in this thread.  All I'm saying is that Insurance Companies contribute to the economy.  Hiring people to work for the Governement do not.  You still have to be able to replace that loss.

[mistertim]

I think Obama's "Public Option" idea was at least a step in the right direction. But of course the right went ape**** over it. 

[Larry]

1 minute ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

All I'm saying is that Insurance Companies contribute to the economy.  

 

Without providing any support for that claim at all, other than pointing out how much money passes through the insurance company's hands, and then pretending that if it weren't for those companies, all that money would cease to exist.  

 

3 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

Hiring people to work for the Governement do not.

 

And that's one of the Great Myths of the GOP.  The notion that there's something inherently different between two entities doing exactly the same thing, if one of them has the word "Inc" in their name.  

[twa]

12 minutes ago, mistertim said:

I think Obama's "Public Option" idea was at least a step in the right direction. But of course the right went ape**** over it. 

 

The option he and most Dems didn't support and even removed from the Senate bill?

http://www.salon.com/2010/03/12/single_payer/

 

yeah, the rights fault 

[ABQCOWBOY]

5 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Without providing any support for that claim at all, other than pointing out how much money passes through the insurance company's hands, and then pretending that if it weren't for those companies, all that money would cease to exist.  

 

 

And that's one of the Great Myths of the GOP.  The notion that there's something inherently different between two entities doing exactly the same thing, if one of them has the word "Inc" in their name.  

 

What type of support would you require?  I mean, they employee people, they pay taxes, they generate ancillary revenue streams that also contribute to our economy.  I mean, I think it's a fair statement to say that they do contribute to the economy.

 

Hiring people to work for the Government does not do that.  It expends revenue but it doesn't generate it, directly into the economy.   Now, to be fair, I think you can discuss the idea of the Government sourcing out that work but if you really think about that, who do you think is going to get that work?  I think it's a safe bet to assume that it would be Insurance Companies because they are best suited to be able to immediately step in and manage that type of thing.  So where are you really at?  The same thing that is happening now will eventually happen again IMO.

[mistertim]

13 minutes ago, twa said:

 

The option he and most Dems didn't support and even removed from the Senate bill?

http://www.salon.com/2010/03/12/single_payer/

 

yeah, the rights fault 

 

Did you read the article? The main reason the senate Dems were going to vote against it and/or remove it is because they knew the GOP would not follow it and it could ruin the reconciliation process. That being said, obviously many Dems are tied to the insurance industry via donations as well, which is a HUGE problem for both parties. As far as Obama I think he was "meh" about it because he likely knew it couldn't ever pass so wasn't going to waste too much time fighting for a lost cause. Doesn't mean he didn't actually want it. Unless you can find a quote of him saying that he thought it was actually a bad idea.

 

And yes, the right as apoplectic over it. Trying to deny that is just ridiculous. 

Edited March 25, 2017 by mistertim

[Larry]

8 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

What type of support would you require?  I mean, they employee people, they pay taxes, they generate ancillary revenue streams that also contribute to our economy.  I mean, I think it's a fair statement to say that they do contribute to the economy.

 

Hiring people to work for the Government does not do that.  

 

Again.  Blind repetition of the religious dogma that if two paper pushers make $20,000/year pushing paper, the one that works for a company "contributes to the economy" and the one that works for the government  "does not do that".  

 

Because the private employee pays taxes and spends his paycheck.  

 

 

---

 

3 minutes ago, mistertim said:

Trying to deny that is just ridiculous. 

 

 

Trying to deny it is just Republican.  

 

[twa]

6 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

 

 

Trying to deny it is just Republican.  

 

 

Trying to excuse the lack of Dem support by Rep opposition seems weak, especially since Reps opposed what was passed. 

[Springfield]

1 hour ago, mistertim said:

It's unfortunate that Universal Healthcare basically has a zero percent chance of happening. Any time someone brings it up you get conservative pundits, politicians, and all the usual suspects coming out of the woodwork practically foaming at the mouth and screaming about socialism and telling people that this means the government will now be running their lives and that a bald eagle will die every time you go to the doctor for free. The whole thing has just been too ingrained in the American psyche through propaganda. 

 

On an unrelated note, I have no clue why my post decided to indent the way it did. weird

 

Its funny that they scream socialism with health care but not the military.  Not that I think the military should ever privatize, but that's one giant organization paid for with our tax dollars.  And most want to add to it.

 

Of course they seem to complain about the health care there (however I'd bet that vets health care can be a bit more intense, especially in times of war).

 

Edited March 25, 2017 by Springfield