Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Genghis Khan, Dec 22, 2007.
Been a crazy week. Republican healthcare failed again and Priebus is out.
I wonder how that compares to the number of lies from other presidents.
And another successful ICBM missile test from North Korea.
Regarding the whole healthcare circus:
What is the core problem on the Republican side, since they are not able to come up with an alternative to the ACA that at least all the Republican senators can agree on? OK, only three out of 51 voted against the most recent one, but still ... If it is honest disagreement due to ideological differences, then the leading Republicans should obviously be aware of it and know that a full repeal of Obamacare is not possible to pass until they win a larger majority in the Senate. But since the ACA has been unpopular among Republicans since the day it was passed - several years ago - the debate should surely have matured enough to make clear what changes could pass the Senate?
As for the guy in the White House - either he actually thought it would be easy to repeal/replace ACA, or he pretends he thought so in order to put pressure on the Republican senators. But it seems that he is gradually realizing that the Congress members aren't his puppets.
There are so many different issues that I don't even really know where to start. I think they've just gotten so used to being an opposition party that they forgot how to govern. It never occurred to them to address the issue of the idealogical differences within the party that would become an obstacle once they retook power. They should've spent the last 7 years working out those differences instead of the political theatre of repealing Obamacare constantly only for Obama to veto it.
They also seemed blindsided by the ACA's surge in popularity. It quickly became obvious that a full repeal without a replacement is not an option, but many congressmen were elected with the main purpose of doing just that and they aren't settling for less. So McConnell can make concessions to those wanting a full repeal, but he'll lose moderate Republicans in the process, and vice versa.
Then there's the Trump factor. I'm not sure he's directly to blame, but he certainly didn't help. Threatening and running attack ads against opposing Republican senators was a stupid move, not to mention the constant (self inflicted) White House drama that took his time and energy away from the healthcare debate. At best he seemed uninterested, and at worst he didn't seem to even like or understand the legislation being worked on. I can't help but think that any other Republican president (aside from say, a Ted Cruz) could've unified the party and led them toward some sort of compromise. Republicans seemed to think that Trump would essentially be an empty suit who would sign anything that came to his desk, but the lack of party leadership will continue to stall their agenda.
Can't they just make health care like it was before Obamacare? I know there's more to it than just that, but it shouldn't be too extremely difficult.
Well, the big problem with that is that something like 24-25 million people who now have health insurance would lose it, and a good percentage of those are in areas that voted for Trump in 2016. So it's pretty tough to go to people who voted for you and say "hey, your health care? Gone. Thanks for the vote!" In addition, the Affordable Care Act has significantly changed the way the market works.
If the White House crisis is going to continue for much longer, I'm starting to fear that the orange-faced madman is going to unleash a war somewhere, and everybody is going to cheer for him. Old trick, always works.
That Scaramucci guy is already out the door.
Donald Trump's Flying Circus.
The Scaramooch thus matched the song even better. Easy come, easy go.
I'm legitimately sad. He was turning out to be one of the best clowns Trump had appointed.
This slate must be pretty dirty with it needing all this cleaning.
Can't they make it so those people stay on their health care and just don't pay real high deductibles?
The majority among Republicans would probably want to go back to a more individual-based system - i.e. pre-ACA - but a simple repeal of the ACA would leave many loose ends. The Republicans have not been able to agree on a solution that tie up these loose ends, thus some of their senators voted against the latest effort because they thought it wasn't good enough - and that shows the advantage of a system where the individual members of Congress are not obliged to vote with the party line. It forces the party to first find something they agree on before taking it to Capitol Hill.
On a more abstract level, about US healthcare: The debacle since Obama took office or even before that, shows that it is difficult to find good middle ground between a system like in Norway (public health care financed through taxes, all citizens of the country are covered - commercial healthcare providers may operate outside of this, but patients who use commercial providers must be able to pay) and the US system where most healthcare providers are commercially operated, and financed through direct payment from the patients (or their insurance companies) - and where insurance is required for most except emergency treatment. (Anyone from the US is welcome to fill in with details).
When the system requires that everyone needs an insurance (or a very well paid job) to receive health care, then obviously it will become an issue when many citizens can't afford a good insurance. Obama's solution was, simply put, to force more people to pay for insurance, along with various ways to compensate for the fact that not everyone has the same amount of money to spend on it.
Trump's mistake was to believe, and say, that it would be easy to find a better solution. Maybe he actually thought the Republican party already was unified behind an alternative.
That is kinda what Obamacare does already, man.
I guess if nickname for ACA were Trumpcare, everything would be fine.
Before Obamacare, the health care I was on had low deductibles. Now, with Obamacare, I don't have health care because I would have to pay high deductibles to get on it. So, how do you figure Obamacare already does that?
Numbers? For instance mine are 15% on gross, and that's the mandatory healthcare deduction for basic medical insurance, no getting out of it. If I had got that money on regular savings account, I could fit myself with a finest Japanese cyber organ replacement in a finest American private institution, probably once a decade. It is what it is, it's not for me, it's for all the people in the country. Yes the corruption eats it, but what still counts, is exactly 8.3 unemployed Croats having access to a hospital (queue) due to my deductibles. Deductibles as I don't count as my belongings anyway.
All this talk of "deductibles"; is this not just tax?
Keep in mind that American healthcare is vastly different to healthcare in Scotland or in Croatia, or indeed, anywhere else in the civilized world. The deductible is the same as a deductible in car insurance - it's how much you have to pay yourself before health insurance coverage will kick in. Some plans have very high deductibles. In the US, some health care insurance also have lifetime caps for specific medicines, procedures, or indeed, diseases. So it's not a tax, @CriedWhenBrucieLeft - the money isn't paid to the US government. And it's not going to help other Americans be less insured, otherwise.
@Travis The Dragon, I don't know specifically why your plan was affected, whether or not you've changed plans, what your base income is, and whether or not you are eligible for Medicaid in your state. It's such a patchwork of systems, but keep in mind that the intent of Obamacare (which I will now call the Affordable Care Act) was not to make health care cheaper. It was to ensure more people could afford health care. The ACA forced insurers to offer coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, as well as making other changes to the way Medicare works as well as making it so people can stay on their parents' plans until they are 26. The other side of that was forcing people who are healthy to buy health insurance, to help the insurance companies "balance the books" - they can afford to pay insurance payments to people with pre-existing conditions because a bunch of healthy people are paying premiums.
Obama made the promise that no plans would change. Unfortunately, he turned out to be incorrect, and it was probably not a realistic promise at the time. Every year, US health care plans were becoming more and more unaffordable, and the ACA couldn't stop that growth. What the ACA has done is slow the rate of health care costs increases, as well as adding many millions more people to the insured pool. The long term affect of this will save billions of tax dollars, because people who have health insurance actually use less health costs as preventable diseases are found and handled early by much cheaper treatments. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
As for why they can't make your deductibles cheaper - it's because a) Republicans hate interfering in the way business works and b) that would cost a ton of money, or put a lot of insurers out of business. They might have to crank up the premiums, for example, making you pay more per month. Or they might add limits. The simple fact of the matter is that health insurers are a business, and they want to make a certain amount of money off each person.
It's entirely possible that you would have worse health care coverage without the ACA - again, I'm not sure of your particulars. In my country, my deductible is extremely low for my health insurance - but my insurance is different, because in Canada, most everything important is covered by my government. And I get pretty damn good health care. A single payer system (IE Medicare for everyone) would likely be the most efficient way to bring your personal costs down, but I doubt it'll happen in my lifetime in the USA.
Thanks for the clarification. We have a similar thing, outside of this mandatory tax - it's called extra insurance, and you get a package through your company for instance, you have to deduce some amount out of your net check, company also puts some amount on that, and it goes to private insurance fund. From there you can use certain services in certain private institutions.
But it's not exactly the same, since a part of this money still goes to the state.
Separate names with a comma.