Obamacare: Say goodnight, Gracie...

[Libertarian01]

It just occurred to me. We need to call all of our senators and congressmen about six (6) monthes before the next primary.

We all threaten to primary the hell out of them IF they don't do a clean repeal. They may not push now, but fear of being primarried might give us all the best shot for a true repeal.

Maybe...?

Regards,

Doug

 

[Woobie]

The world is greater than the principality in which you reside.

That concept is a quasi-intellectual emotional appeal used to justify the confiscation of the hard-earned resources of others.

 

[Alpo]

What is so hard about earning? You seemed to have done it. I did it. I bet neither of us were miners or penguin biologists.

 

[Woobie]

What is so hard about earning? You seemed to have done it.

Its better if you just go experience it for yourself.

 

[T.Lex]

We're getting there. But I'm not done with the first part yet. We have to come to grips with the reality that the Republicans tried to slip us a mickey, and they must be highly scrutinized going forward.

What?

Republicans or Trump? The proposed bill was repeal/replace like Trump promised. That's not a Mickey.

And, since we're past it, what are you waiting for? What are the bullet points for a viable option that you'd support?

But policy wonks tend to think in 2 year intervals.

BS. Congresspeople think in 2 year intervals. Policy wonks think long term.

What is wrong with the Freedom Caucus reintroducing the repeal bill that made it to Obama's desk a couple years ago?

Can you be more specific? I don't think what you describe existed.

This happened last year:
House fails to override president's veto of Obamacare repeal

The bill would have scrapped key sections of the health care law, including the mandate for individuals to buy health insurance and for employers with more than 50 workers to provide insurance to employees. It also would have cut off funding to Planned Parenthood, which receives about $500 million a year from the federal government to provide cancer screenings, medical checkups and birth control services.

As a starting point, though, nothing's wrong with that. In fact, it was remarkably similar to what the FC rejected.

Like I said earlier, several bills were passed in the House that balanced repeal/replace in different ways. The issue is all-or-nothing and how it rarely works in the political real world.

(Sorry for the LA Times linkification.)
The GOP's Obamacare repeal plan is out--and it's even worse than anyone expected - LA Times

No federal funding can be made, either directly or indirectly, by Medicaid to a healthcare organization that “provides for abortions,” other than those done in cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother. That’s Planned Parenthood.

...
The individual and employer mandates are eliminated. They’re not repealed exactly, but the penalties are repealed, which amounts to the same thing.
...
Essential health benefit rules are repealed. As of Dec. 31, 2019, ACA rules that required qualified health plans to provide hospitalization, maternity care, mental health services and other benefits would be sunsetted at the federal level. States would have the authority to set them instead.

 

[Alpo]

Its better if you just go experience it for yourself.

Oh, I have. And I've hit the max tax bracket many a year. And *****ed about it while completing those returns. But I didn't sit there and blame poor people for my tax bracket.

 

[Woobie]

Oh, I have. And I've hit the max tax bracket many a year. And *****ed about it while completing those returns. But I didn't sit there and blame poor people for my tax bracket.

Now that we are past the cute barbs, we can return to substance. Who is blaming poor people? I've been poor, and I never wanted someone else's money. I always refused government aid back then. I'll earn what I get, and expect the same from others.

 

[Woobie]

What?

Republicans or Trump? The proposed bill was repeal/replace like Trump promised. That's not a Mickey.

And, since we're past it, what are you waiting for? What are the bullet points for a viable option that you'd support?



BS. Congresspeople think in 2 year intervals. Policy wonks think long term.


Can you be more specific? I don't think what you describe existed.

This happened last year:
House fails to override president's veto of Obamacare repeal


As a starting point, though, nothing's wrong with that. In fact, it was remarkably similar to what the FC rejected.

Like I said earlier, several bills were passed in the House that balanced repeal/replace in different ways. The issue is all-or-nothing and how it rarely works in the political real world.

(Sorry for the LA Times linkification.)
The GOP's Obamacare repeal plan is out--and it's even worse than anyone expected - LA Times

It was not the repeal/replace we asked for, and they knew it. They tried to push it off as such. And you still are.

The theory of what motivates a policy wonk is different from the practice. This bill is either proof of that, or proof that Republicans will abandon good policy for bear-term benefit.

 

[T.Lex]

It was not the repeal/replace we asked for, and they knew it. They tried to push it off as such. And you still are.

Who is "we"?

And you still haven't said what you DID ask for!!!

Maybe this tack - what is so different in this 2017 bill that was acceptable (assuming it was acceptable) in the 2016 bill?

I'm starting to think you don't actually know what your problem is with the recently-defeated bill other than what the FC people have said. Even though you say you don't actually listen to them.

Trump was certainly non-specific on the campaign trail. He specifically deferred any bullet points about what the legislation would look like. So I don't know how this can "not be" what he promised.

And yes, I will continue to advocate changing the biggest domestic policy problem created by our generation.

 

[Alpo]

Now that we are past the cute barbs, we can return to substance. Who is blaming poor people? I've been poor, and I never wanted someone else's money. I always refused government aid back then. I'll earn what I get, and expect the same from others.

Within this brief response is the crux of the issue methinks. You've lived your life a certain way and expect others to do the same. Your view is the correct and only view of how the world should work.

 

[HoughMade]

Well, I like to find the bright side. At least this last week handed Trump a defeat, didn't advance the idea of repeal and replace at all and gave the Democrats a victory and something to cheer about.

Congrats to the Republicans!

 

[T.Lex]

Well, I like to find the bright side. At least this last week handed Trump a defeat, didn't advance the idea of repeal and replace at all and gave the Democrats a victory and something to cheer about.

Congrats to the Republicans!

Clearly, it is the big tent party. Even extends to helping our political rivals.

 

[Woobie]

Who is "we"?

And you still haven't said what you DID ask for!!!

Maybe this tack - what is so different in this 2017 bill that was acceptable (assuming it was acceptable) in the 2016 bill?

I'm starting to think you don't actually know what your problem is with the recently-defeated bill other than what the FC people have said. Even though you say you don't actually listen to them.

Trump was certainly non-specific on the campaign trail. He specifically deferred any bullet points about what the legislation would look like. So I don't know how this can "not be" what he promised.

And yes, I will continue to advocate changing the biggest domestic policy problem created by our generation.

The voters wanted a repeal. Trump said repeal/replace and the voters (maybe wrongly) assumed the replace would look nothing like the ACA.

The private mandate is better than the ACA mandate, but unacceptable.

The Medicaid expansion fix doesn't go nearly far enough. Instead of a freeze, there needs to be staged reduction starting in the next FY.

Not sold on the tax credit.

Cadillac tax delayed, not eliminated.

Mandatory services in insurance plans.

No provision for insurers to lower age of dependent eligibility or impose max benefits. This keeps premiums high.


Shall I continue?

 

[Woobie]

Within this brief response is the crux of the issue methinks. You've lived your life a certain way and expect others to do the same. Your view is the correct and only view of how the world should work.

Wrong. In fact quite the opposite. I refuse to force anyone to live a certain way. I will not pay anyone to hold a gun to someone else's head so I can get free stuff. I simply request the same courtesy in return.

 

[bwframe]

US Senate passes symbolic Obamacare repeal, assuring veto

Obama vetoes health bill repeal | TheHill

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The voters wanted a repeal.

The voters probably don't know or care what the repercussions of a full repeal would be. Political suicide.

You might get it... but it'd be the only thing you get before you're shown the door in 2018 and 2020.

It'd be the perfect propaganda storm for the Left.

 

[T.Lex]

The voters wanted a repeal.

Upon what do you base this?

Trump said repeal/replace and the voters (maybe wrongly) assumed the replace would look nothing like the ACA.

What assumption? He never gave specifics. YOU may have assumed, but that's different.

The private mandate is better than the ACA mandate, but unacceptable.

Better, but unacceptable. So the only thing acceptable is no mandate at all? Even a non-penalty "mandate"?

The Medicaid expansion fix doesn't go nearly far enough. Instead of a freeze, there needs to be staged reduction starting in the next FY.

Reduction of what? Overall Medicaid spending? Ok. I'm in favor, but when has that ever passed both houses?

(I don't recall seeing a staged reduction in the 2016 bill, but if it is there, please link.)

Not sold on the tax credit.

What do you mean? It was in there. At a policy level, the fiscal impact may be significant, but it means a net price reduction to consumers. Is this not better than consumers paying higher premiums?

Cadillac tax delayed, not eliminated.

From the one advocating a "wait for the next round" I don't see how this is consistent. Delaying the tax until there is more support to eliminate it makes as much sense.

Mandatory services in insurance plans.

But fewer than currently required. Is this where the all-or-nothing kicks in?

No provision for insurers to lower age of dependent eligibility or impose max benefits. This keeps premiums high.

Care to back that up, at least for the dependent eligibility. Premiums are generally lower for younger people with a record of good health.

Shall I continue?

You've shared your issues (some of them inconsistent) but not what you would accept.

 

[T.Lex]

US Senate passes symbolic Obamacare repeal, assuring veto

Obama vetoes health bill repeal | TheHill

Did you read those links?

It wasn't "straight repeal." It was repeal and replace, but with different balances between the 2 than the 2017 proposal.

From your second link:

The legislation does not repeal all of ObamaCare, because the reconciliation rules forced Republicans to choose certain elements to eliminate.

 

[Woobie]

Upon what do you base this?


What assumption? He never gave specifics. YOU may have assumed, but that's different.


Better, but unacceptable. So the only thing acceptable is no mandate at all? Even a non-penalty "mandate"?


Reduction of what? Overall Medicaid spending? Ok. I'm in favor, but when has that ever passed both houses?

(I don't recall seeing a staged reduction in the 2016 bill, but if it is there, please link.)


What do you mean? It was in there. At a policy level, the fiscal impact may be significant, but it means a net price reduction to consumers. Is this not better than consumers paying higher premiums?


From the one advocating a "wait for the next round" I don't see how this is consistent. Delaying the tax until there is more support to eliminate it makes as much sense.


But fewer than currently required. Is this where the all-or-nothing kicks in?


Care to back that up, at least for the dependent eligibility. Premiums are generally lower for younger people with a record of good health.


You've shared your issues (some of them inconsistent) but not what you would accept.

Trump said repeal/replace. That proved very popular and played into his election and the overall republican victory. That isn't hard to see.

No mandate. That is non-negotiable.

You know about the Medicaid expansion portion of this bill and the ACA don't you? Please tell me your research in supporting this bill didn't leave that part out. And I haven't made a position on the 2016 bill, so that is irrelevant.

There is nothing inconsistent in demanding repeal of a future tax rather than a delay when there is time to actually accomplish the repeal. Nice try.

There were not many fewer mandatory services in this bill. It ought to be zero, as that is a customer-vendor contractual matter, but in the spirit of getting something meaningful done, it ought to be greatly reduced.

Do you really need me to explain how having more people on a policy makes it more expensive?

If you can not infer what is acceptable from this post or the previous one, I see no need to write it in crayon.


Now then, how about a defense of this bill beyond "well at least it was SOMETHING."

 

[bwframe]

...It wasn't "straight repeal." It was repeal and replace, but with different balances between the 2 than the 2017 proposal...

Maybe not, but it made it to the president's desk, unlike last week.