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

[ABQCOWBOY]

Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

 

I did not say "I'm done with the thread."  I very clearly said "I'm done walking you through this."  I'm not leaving a somewhat interesting topic on account of your silliness.

 

And if the CBO comes out in a few weeks and says something different, I will just as strongly rely on that version of the report.  

 

Very good.  Lets then table our discussion till the new CBO is released.  That should be very interesting. 

 

Tahnk you by the way, for participating in this discussion.

[PleaseBlitz]

2 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

Very good.  Lets then table our discussion till the new CBO is released.  That should be very interesting. 

 

Tahnk you by the way, for participating in this discussion.

 

So then i get a question right?  Given the fact that your opinions have so clearly been refuted (repeatedly), do you still hold those same opinions?  Or have they changed?

 

Also:  Did you ever find the answer to your question about whether Medicaid is being cut?  What did you find out?

Edited June 27, 2017 by PleaseBlitz

[@DCGoldPants]

 

 

How bad does he want to call them both "2's"?

 

Neither will dare him to explain the bill knowing that he has no clue how it works.

[Llevron]

Need more prof

[Larry]

16 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

The right said earlier that Medicaid recipients would not have major cuts.  Now, is this true?  I don't know but, that's what was said earlier.

 

 

Yes, the right said that.  

 

And by far the major part of the bill being rolled out is to cut Medicaid, and use the money for tax cuts.  

 

Yeah, it makes changes to Obamacare, too.  But really, that's the cover.  

 

But really, the major thrust of this package (certainly, the major shift in budgeting), is:  

 

1)  Change the way we fund Medicaid from "We'll cover these services/people" to "we'll spend this much, and let somebody else figure out how to make ends meet".  

 

2)  And then commit, in advance, to not spending as much as it would have cost, to cover those services/people we've been covering.  (But claim it's not a cut", because the total dollar amount still goes up, just not enough to pay for the things.)  

 

3)  And take the money that we're going to save by "not cutting" Medicaid, 10 years from now, and spend it, now, on tax cuts.  

 

[Destino]

9 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

I dont get it at all.

 

It doesnt help them politically.  And it makes things even worse then they are under Obamacare.

 

I understand some want to enact it just as an FU to Obama, but seriously.

 

ACA needs some changes, that's clear to anyone that is paying attention.  The problem is that politically they can't be seen as making ACA work because they've called it evil and promised to destroy it.  They've been campaigning for years on repeal and replace which, once you move beyond the slogans, means moving us to a place closer to where we were before health care reform.  That place is not better and politically it is filled with unavoidable land mines. 

 

They've painted themselves into a corner and the country is going to suffer under a worse system because of politics.  Assuming they eventually manage to pass something.   

[ABQCOWBOY]

1 minute ago, Kilmer17 said:

Fiscally it is only better than what Obamacare WOULD be.  It's STILL a major expense for people and the Govt.

 

I agree with that. This plan is better but that's not saying much.  Here is what I think many in the GOP are playing for.  I think they realize that Obamacare is going to fail financially.  They don't want to be on the hook for the Tax Increases and the Up Front Costs that are coming and I can't say I blame them.  The Obama administration set this up so that all of the financing ended after he left office and the guy holding the bag, so to speak, would be the next administration. 

 

They no that they have to prop it up because they can't let it fail, they will be held responsible for that as well but they also no that the short term has to be addressed.   There plan is to pass something in the short term and then replace it with something else IMO.  the problem there, future promises from politicians on either side are about as good as expired Lotto Tickets that don't hit.  I think that's the real deal but I don't know for sure.

 

3 minutes ago, Destino said:

 

They've been campaigning for years on repeal and replace.  The problem with that is that once you get beyond the slogans it means moving us to a place closer to where we were before health care reform.  That place is not better and politically it is filled with land mines and there is no way to avoid them.  ACA needs to be fixed, not replaced, but they can't bring themselves to make a program created by Obama work better. 

 

ACA needs to be scrapped because you are never ever going to get popular consensus on it.  It's fundamentally wrong to expect one segment of people to pay for another segment and not expect them to hate that deal.  That's just never going to be popular.  Insurace is not something that is a Human Right and basically, that's what we are talking about here. 

 

I think you gotta go another way.

[Destino]

2 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

They no that they have to prop it up because they can't let it fail, they will be held responsible for that as well but they also no that the short term has to be addressed.   There plan is to pass something in the short term and then replace it with something else IMO.  the problem there, future promises from politicians on either side are about as good as expired Lotto Tickets that don't hit.  I think that's the real deal but I don't know for sure.

 

The problem is that this **** isn't a game and people's lives literally hang in the balance.

[NoCalMike]

4 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

 

They no that they have to prop it up because they can't let it fail, they will be held responsible for that as well but they also no that the short term has to be addressed.   There plan is to pass something in the short term and then replace it with something else IMO.  the problem there, future promises from politicians on either side are about as good as expired Lotto Tickets that don't hit.  I think that's the real deal but I don't know for sure.

 

 

What are you basing that opinion on though?  I have heard nothing from the actual GOP about passing something short term and then replacing it with something else later on.

 

In fact the entire "repeal & replace" rhetoric is born only of straight up "repeal" polling so bad.  The issue with what the GOP is trying to do is that they are looking to replace the ACA with something atrocious, which further reiterates that their interest was never to improve healthcare for the people in the first place.

Edited June 27, 2017 by NoCalMike

[ABQCOWBOY]

Just now, Destino said:

The problem is that this **** isn't a game and people's lives literally hang in the balance.

 

That's true but neither is making one segment of the population suffer for another.  I mean, that's why the ACA won't work.  Stuff has to be fair.  If it's not, it will never work.  JMO

1 minute ago, NoCalMike said:

 

What are you basing that opinion on though?  I have heard nothing from the actual GOP about passing something short term and then replacing it with something else later on.

 

In fact the entire "repeal & replace" rhetoric is born only of straight up "repeal" polling so bad.  The issue with that the GOP is trying to do is that the are looking to replace the ACA with something atrocious, which further reiterates that their interest was never to improve healthcare for the people in the first place.

 

Actually, there have been lots of reports on this and Trump has said repeatedly that the Bill will chance and evolve over time.  Again, I never trust politicians when they promise to gladly pay me for a hamburger next Tuesday, but that has been mentioned a few times.  I just think that this is probably the sell they want to go forward with.

[Destino]

3 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

ACA needs to be scrapped because you are never ever going to get popular consensus on it.  It's fundamentally wrong to expect one segment of people to pay for another segment and not expect them to hate that deal.  That's just never going to be popular.  Insurace is not something that is a Human Right and basically, that's what we are talking about here. 

 

I think you gotta go another way.

 

Fundamentally wrong?  You and I operate on entirely different definitions of right and wrong if you believe that.  There are few things as clearly right as providing health care to those that need it and not financially ruining families because one of them got sick.  We as a people collectively spend money on a lot of things, and few of those things are more worthy and more necessary than health care.

[@DCGoldPants]

 

Somebody is low energy right now. 

[FanboyOf91]

 

"Victory has a hundred fathers, but defeat is an orphan."

[ABQCOWBOY]

Just now, Destino said:

 

Fundamentally wrong?  You and I operate on entirely different definitions of right and wrong if you believe that.  There are few things as clearly right as providing health care to those that need it and not financially ruining families because one of them got sick.  We as a people collectively spend money on a lot of things, and few of those things are more worthy and more necessary than health care.

 

Perhaps but we aren't talking about providing Healthcare here.  We are talking about one person paying for insurance for another person and that's wrong.  Nevermind that the insurance doesn't get you healthcare, which is also wrong, it's the idea that one person has to pay for another in this manner.  You are always going to have descent in that situation.  Obamacare doesn't prevent families from financial ruin, BTW.  That's still the same as it always was.  It gives you insurance, it doesn't give you Healthcare and premiums much more expensive now then they were before so that, to me, is just another political talking point. 

[@DCGoldPants]

1 minute ago, FanboyOf91 said:

 

"Victory has a hundred fathers, but defeat is an orphan."

 

Has to be pretty bad to get rejected there. They went full Brownback and even the conservatives are like "Yeah, this whole cutting taxes doesn't just turn into jobs and opportunity. Oh...and our schools are broke now. We need to raise some money." 

[Destino]

3 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

That's true but neither is making one segment of the population suffer for another.  I mean, that's why the ACA won't work.  Stuff has to be fair.  If it's not, it will never work.  JMO

You want to cut the health care of people that desperately need it, or leave them facing financial ruin if they get sick... and you describe your reasons as seeking to ease suffering?  Bold choice.  

[NoCalMike]

12 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

 

 

ACA needs to be scrapped because you are never ever going to get popular consensus on it.  It's fundamentally wrong to expect one segment of people to pay for another segment and not expect them to hate that deal.  That's just never going to be popular.  Insurance is not something that is a Human Right and basically, that's what we are talking about here. 

 

I think you gotta go another way.

 

Health insurance vs. healthcare.

 

And I'm sorry, but isn't insurance *exactly* what you just described? (A segment of the population paying for another segment of the population) 

 

 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

16 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

I agree with that. This plan is better but that's not saying much.

Would you also agree that you don't know dick about either plan and that you are only saying it's better because the Republicans rolled it out?

[ABQCOWBOY]

1 minute ago, @SkinsGoldPants said:

 

Has to be pretty bad to get rejected there. They went full Brownback and even the conservatives are like "Yeah, this whole cutting taxes doesn't just turn into jobs and opportunity. Oh...and our schools are broke now. We need to raise some money." 

They may be one of those states that feel like the Bill didn't go far enough, I don't know.  There are two parties of decent in the GOP right now.  Those who want something to sign on and those who want full repeal in order to start over from scratch. 

 

1 minute ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

Would you also agree that you don't know dick about either plan and that you are only saying it's better because the Republicans rolled it out?

 

What do you think?  I mean, seriously, WHAT DO YOU THINK?

 

LOL....   Your funny man.

[Destino]

8 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

Perhaps but we aren't talking about providing Healthcare here. 

We absolutely are.  We are talking about changes that will take away health care or greatly reduce access to health care for millions of people. 

 

8 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

We are talking about one person paying for insurance for another person and that's wrong.  Nevermind that the insurance doesn't get you healthcare, which is also wrong, it's the idea that one person has to pay for another in this manner. 

Then end taxation entirely because you've just described the entire public system.  What do you think funding VA is?  That's people paying for others.  How do you think we build school in poor neighborhoods?  Same thing. 

[@DCGoldPants]

 

 

 

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

4 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Health insurance vs. healthcare.

 

And I'm sorry, but isn't insurance *exactly* what you just described? (A segment of the population paying for another segment of the population) 

 

 

 

No.  It should be but it's not.  Insurance companies work and make money, based on denying service.  They don't make money if they approve everything.  They only make money if people don't use the service. 

 

As for insurance being exactly the same, no.  It's not because one segment of the population is paying for their own insurance and, they are also paying for the insurance for the people who are not paying for their own.  I mean, it's not really the same at all IMO.

[NoCalMike]

3 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

No.  It should be but it's not.  Insurance companies work and make money, based on denying service.  They don't make money if they approve everything.  They only make money if people don't use the service. 

 

As for insurance being exactly the same, no.  It's not because one segment of the population is paying for their own insurance and, they are also paying for the insurance for the people who are not paying for their own.  I mean, it's not really the same at all IMO.

 

Ok so then the real issue is using a profit-motivated entity like insurance companies to be the gateway to healthcare entirely?

[Kilmer17]

1 minute ago, NoCalMike said:

 

Ok so then the real issue is using a profit-motivated entity like insurance companies to be the gateway to healthcare entirely?

DINGDINGDINGDING

[Destino]

3 minutes ago, ABQCOWBOY said:

 

No.  It should be but it's not.  Insurance companies work and make money, based on denying service.  They don't make money if they approve everything.  They only make money if people don't use the service.

Great point, we should get rid of them entirely and move to an entirely government system that doesn't seek to take money and then find ways not provide a service, for profits sake.