Obamacare: Say goodnight, Gracie...

[Twangbanger]

Indeed.

But, Trump's ultimatum (again, taking it as face value, which is not much value) suggests finality. If not this change, then no change.

Remember where the real ultimatums are coming from. The GOP fringes seem to believe they can continue through several more iterations of this debate, as if there is unlimited political capital to spend on this issue. The President simply seems to be reminding them of reality.

Obamacare as currently written ENSURES CONTINUING PRIVATE INVOLVEMENT in the health insurance industry, as I have labored to explain previously in this thread (and contrary to what some here believe). It forces citizens to buy a company's product (thanks John Roberts). Companies like that! It gives them back customers they lost, when the financial crisis knocked people out of the workforce. GOP Moderates are not the only ones who fear "clean repeal." The insurance companies are scared to death that clean repeal will disrupt markets, and if done without some form of replacement securely provided for, they will lose the customers ATA "gave" them.

Always follow the money. This is about maintaining corporate welfare. I'm convinced much of the GOP is fine with this bill as currently written. They just like to run against it. Trump's role as President is simply to remind them that there's a limit to the political capital that can be spent on this "game" of theirs.

 

[T.Lex]

The GOP fringes seem to believe they can continue through several more iterations of this debate, as if there is unlimited political capital to spend on this issue. The President simply seems to be reminding them of reality.

But remember, Obamacare as currently written ENSURES CONTINUING PRIVATE INVOLVEMENT in the health insurance industry, as I have labored to explain previously in this thread (and contrary to what some here believe). It forces citizens to buy a company's product (thanks John Roberts). Companies like that! It gives them back customers they lost, when the financial crisis knocked people out of the workforce. GOP Moderates are not the only ones who fear "clean repeal." The insurance companies are scared to death that clean repeal will disrupt markets, and if done without some form of replacement securely provided for, they will lose the customers ATA "gave" them.

Always follow the money. This is about maintaining corporate welfare. I'mean convinced much of the GOP is fine with this bill as currently written. They just like to run against it. Trump's role as President is simply to remind them that there's a limit to the political capital that can be spent on this "game."

I don't really disagree with this, which is why I support the proposed legislation. The political reality is that straight up repeal ain't going to happen. Instead of continuing to eat the current **** sandwich, let's dilute it at least a bit.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Can we just say the feds are not and should not be in the health care business. And that they should not be in any business as they do "Nothing" well enough to be in business. Any and everything they do is a looser. A business can not operate and survive this way.
Health care is a business. Period. It is not a right.

Maybe I'm nitpicking... and I agree the government, for the most part, should not be involved in it...

But perhaps health insurance is the business, and thus not a right. Not everyone should be forced to have it, but they should all have access to health care.

So maybe calling health care a "right" would be a bit much, but how do we guarantee access to it? Can a 100% privatized industry be guaranteed to all people?

Every person should have immediate access to health care, and currently they do. It may be expensive, and it may bankrupt them depending on what they need... but it's still accessible. Although not ideal.

 

[HoughMade]

...I want Obamacare gone. Pass whatever necessary to do that NOW, even if incremental.

Republicans: Politicians who will take 0% of what they want rather than anything less than 100% of what they want.

 

[Woobie]

This conversation makes me want to leave America. I just don't want to live in a place where we wring our hands worrying about making sure everyone has everything. I don't trust people who consider the freedom to enter into contracts as a matter for debate. I don't respect people who see asking people to earn what they get as harsh.

We have a system of not just economic, but freedom welfare. Someone else earned it for me. Easy come, easy go.

 

[T.Lex]

This conversation makes me want to leave America. I just don't want to live in a place where we wring our hands worrying about making sure everyone has everything. I don't trust people who consider the freedom to enter into contracts as a matter for debate. I don't respect people who see asking people to earn what they get as harsh.

We have a system of not just economic, but freedom welfare. Someone else earned it for me. Easy come, easy go.

It is what it is.

Incrementalism to roll back the New Deal is going to be the only way it happens. It may take a generation, but we ain't getting rid of it in one fell swoop.

 

[JettaKnight]

Republicans: Politicians who will take 0% of what they want rather than anything less than 100% of what they want.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

This conversation makes me want to leave America. I just don't want to live in a place where we wring our hands worrying about making sure everyone has everything.

Care to elaborate? What is it you think all people shouldn't have, in this conversation?

 

[HoughMade]

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

...and if not the good, at least the "better".

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It is what it is.

Incrementalism to roll back the New Deal is going to be the only way it happens. It may take a generation, but we ain't getting rid of it in one fell swoop.

Ok. Maybe I'm super cynical today but name a substantial government overreach/intrusion that has ever significantly rolledback once its tendrils have bored in? I'll give you some 2nd Amendment stuff, particularly on the state levels but whatabout the feds?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Republicans: Politicians who will take 0% of what they want rather than anything less than 100% of what they want.

Heh! Seems more like go after 10% of what they want because they're afraid if they go after 100% of what they campaigned on they're afraid of not getting re-elected.

 

[T.Lex]

Ok. Maybe I'm super cynical today but name a substantial government overreach/intrusion that has ever significantly rolledback once its tendrils have bored in? I'll give you some 2nd Amendment stuff, particularly on the state levels but whatabout the feds?

Well, the 2A stuff - even at the federal level - comes to mind. But, that's also part and parcel of what draws us together on INGO.

There've been various areas of regulation/deregulation including airlines and banking/finance. Very much pendulum-type swings. Within the legal community, there was even a time when you couldn't talk to people about estate planning if it involved trying to avoid having assets gobbled up by the feds when you got old. (There may still be some issues in this regard.)

It has happened. Not often enough, but it does.

Heh! Seems more like go after 10% of what they want because they're afraid if they go after 100% of what they campaigned on they're afraid of not getting re-elected.

They're always afraid of not getting re-elected. Especially in the House.

So, knowing that, we need to adjust our expectations, IMHO. And vote for people who we can believe in.

 

[Woobie]

Care to elaborate? What is it you think all people shouldn't have, in this conversation?

A guarantee of healthcare. Anyone can buy what they can afford. It isn't governments place to make sure those who can't afford still get what they want. When they try, they usually make the problem worse, a la Obamacare. In fact, the current exhorbitant healthcare prices are largely due to government making things better.

 

[Woobie]

It is what it is.

Incrementalism to roll back the New Deal is going to be the only way it happens. It may take a generation, but we ain't getting rid of it in one fell swoop.

It won't happen in one generation or ten. People are loathe to earn what they can be given, and readily give up what someone else has earned.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

A guarantee of healthcare. Anyone can buy what they can afford. It isn't governments place to make sure those who can't afford still get what they want. When they try, they usually make the problem worse, a la Obamacare. In fact, the current exhorbitant healthcare prices are largely due to government making things better.

Are we not mixing up healthcare with health insurance here? I don't think there should be a guarantee of health insurance... but absolutely every person in a functioning society should be able to get healthcare... Again, they may not be able to necessarily afford it, but payment plans are always an option. It should be the responsibility of the person that sought healthcare to pay for it... sure. But it should always be accessible. No one should ever be denied healthcare. Can we agree on that much?

 

[T.Lex]

Along those lines, I believe hospitals are legally obligated to treat emergency patients, without regard to their ability to pay.

That's certainly a .gov intrusion on the market - that filters down to all of us - but I'm pretty much ok with that one.

 

[Woobie]

Are we not mixing up healthcare with health insurance here? I don't think there should be a guarantee of health insurance... but absolutely every person in a functioning society should be able to get healthcare... Again, they may not be able to necessarily afford it, but payment plans are always an option. It should be the responsibility of the person that sought healthcare to pay for it... sure. But it should always be accessible. No one should ever be denied healthcare. Can we agree on that much?

I have no desire for government to provide any guarantees of access to *healthcare* and by extension insurance. There will be access when it is possible, and when it is impossible, government guarantees are meaningless. The industry is too lucrative for every provider to deny care. As you say, payment plans are an option.

No one should support the power of a third party to force two parties into contract.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I have no desire for government to provide any guarantees of access to *healthcare* and by extension insurance. There will be access when it is possible, and when it is impossible, government guarantees are meaningless. The industry is too lucrative for every provider to deny care. As you say, payment plans are an option.

No one should support the power of a third party to force two parties into contract.

I, too, don't necessarily want government involved... but how do you guarantee that private healthcare providers continue to provide healthcare to those in-need? Do we count on them to do it out of the kindness of their hearts?

Like T.Lex said... emergency services currently cannot be denied. This makes sense. You break something, you get shot, you get stabbed, you get pregnant... you can't leave those people without options. That isn't reasonable or feasible in a 1st World Country. It'd be nice if laws weren't needed in that regard... so I would hope this fantasy world of no government involvement would have private providers continuing to help those in-need (like we said, on payment plans if necessary.)

Also, crowdfunding and charity are pretty common these days.

I just see both sides of this. I want government out of it. I also am skeptical that healthcare providers, left to their own devices, would care for everyone that needs it. It is, as we can see, a for-profit system. That isn't always pro-consumer. Perhaps minimal regulation is required for something as important as healthcare... even if it's just... "Do your thing, but you can't deny emergency services."

 

[Woobie]

I, too, don't necessarily want government involved... but how do you guarantee that private healthcare providers continue to provide healthcare to those in-need? Do we count on them to do it out of the kindness of their hearts?

Like T.Lex said... emergency services currently cannot be denied. This makes sense. You break something, you get shot, you get stabbed, you get pregnant... you can't leave those people without options. That isn't reasonable or feasible in a 1st World Country. It'd be nice if laws weren't needed in that regard... so I would hope this fantasy world of no government involvement would have private providers continuing to help those in-need (like we said, on payment plans if necessary.)

Also, crowdfunding and charity are pretty common these days.

I just see both sides of this. I want government out of it. I also am skeptical that healthcare providers, left to their own devices, would care for everyone that needs it. It is, as we can see, a for-profit system. That isn't always pro-consumer.

I have no desire to make any market pro-consumer. Nor do I wish it to be pro-producer. I want uninhibited competition. I want people to be free. Having been liberated, they will figure out supply and demand on their own.

There is no government-supplied guarantee that anyone will repair your house after a storm. Yet no one lacks availability to home repair.

This isn't fantasy. But it sounds like fantasy to someone (not speaking about anyone in particular) conditioned from a young age that government can ultimately provide the solution to any problem. If all you see is a safety net, you forget there is a set of stairs.

 

[Libertarian01]

Along those lines, I believe hospitals are legally obligated to treat emergency patients, without regard to their ability to pay.

That's certainly a .gov intrusion on the market - that filters down to all of us - but I'm pretty much ok with that one.

I absolutely agree with the premise of your argument, and I disagree with the conclusion.

This is where I am a mean, heartless bastage - for real.

Here is the following hypothetical for anyone who thinks they believe in a truly free market healthcare system: Imagine a small child, approximately 5 - 7 years olde has been brought to the ER due to running out into traffic and hit by a car. Damage is severe and life threatening. The parents are nowhere to be found. Would YOU (the reader, not T.Lex) be OK with the hospital allowing the child to die because proof of ability to pay cannot be found?

IF your bleeding, human, compassionate heart says there ought to be a rule of any kind whatsoever that forces the hospital to provide lifesaving treatment, then you have just made healthcare a right.

I believe the hospital should not be forced to save the child, and if they do so then they must assume 100% of the financial burden without shifting those costs to any other patient.

This is the deep dilemma of healthcare. ARE WE (the collective "we") WILLING TO LET THE INNOCENT DIE? If not, then you are a kind, decent person who is willing to spend your/our resources to help those in need. Yet by doing so you turn healthcare into a right, not a privilege.

I am willing to let the innocent die because I believe that is what must be done in order to force the true embracing of individual responsibility upon society. I believe that only after the collective we understand that by choosing not to carry insurance (or some other ability to pay) will we move toward putting the reigns on an out of control healthcare industry.

Realty check: I also believe that I am in the minority and will never get what I believe to be right. Too many people are unwilling to let the innocent be harmed by failing to act, and maybe(?) that is a good thing.

I bring up this worst case scenario because T.Lex was correct. It is from this "...obligated to treat emergency patients..." that much of the rest of our collective philosophy is based upon. We all are like fish living in a fishtank that is our world. We have difficulty imagining a life outside the fishtank. We live in a certain era, we were raised in a certain era, we surround ourselves with likeminded people, we have a collective understanding of history, we make assumptions without even understanding the basis of our thinking.

Caveat: i also believe people on INGO (and similar boards) have a higher probability to think outside of certain boxes in many areas due to the general trend to imagine a TEOTWAWKI situation and prepare for it. By doing so it forces us to think, but we still make certain assumptions that we aren't even aware of.

Kind Regards,

Doug