Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 24 of 41 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 346 to 360 of 606
  1. #346
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    75,495
    Quote Originally Posted by IndyFan View Post
    FWIW, I am really surprised at how much trouble the GOP is having getting to 50 votes. GOP party discipline has always been stronger than the Democrats. A chance to 'repeal Obamacare' would seem to be a thing that should gather enough GOP votes just on the title alone. Shouldn't really matter what the actual legislation says. Pretty poor effort so far by McConnell and friends.

    I wonder if this is a side effect of legislative empowerment caused by a weak president. Legislators don't respect or fear the White House, so they are more willing to not fall in line on big votes unless there is something in it for them or theirs. In any case it is interesting to watch the sausage being made in spite of the effort the Senate GOP leadership made to keep things secret.
    Party discipline is super easy when you are voting no or when you know that your vote won't count. A great example was Senator Capito from West Virginia. She has recently expressed concern about the drastic reduction in Medicaid. Which should be excellent. Right? She realizes that the drastic cuts will hurt her voters. So why do I look at this skeptically? Well I do so because she voted along with her colleagues how many times in 2015 and 2016 to repeal Medicaid in virtually similar ways and didn't seem to express any reservations then. What changed? Well the fact that Obama was president and would never sign the bill they were voting on. But now that Trump is president, he will sign it if they tell him to do so. Now she has to be careful. She's firing with live ammo now and the consequences of a yes vote are real.

  2. #347
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    6,564
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    I'm just curious about the Republican perspective here: is there anything funnier for you all than hearing Marco Rubio say he's undecided? We all know that little Marco will fall in line for Trump. He ought to be called whipped Marco.
    What we're seeing is an interal struggle between serving the voters and Congress serving the status quo. Rand Paul has it nailed, the ACA has too many mandates that will never allow premiums to be controlled. Stop making excuses and blow this thing out, start over with a clean sheet of paper. Until we do this all we're going to get is a chipping away of the legislation that leaves the voters with a bastardized version that will never serve the people that it's supposed to help.

    I have a really negative opinion on this whole deal. I've watched this thing metastisize and many of the bad things that we didn't want come true. Our legislators couldn't help but **** this up on the most basic level, it's not affordable or sustainable in it's current form.

    I want the government to get out of the doctor and insurance business. If they want to install some regs like reforming tort law and making the insurance market available nation wide then get after it. The government's involvement should end with helping those that can't afford health insurance pay the tab, they're doing this anyway. Unless they're intention is to get rid of private run insurance/doctors/ hospitals stay the **** out. The last thing I want is to trust MY healthcare to a government employee....
    "..When you have great coaches, then after you have great coaches you get great players, you have a great organization, and you tell them one thing-

    Just win baby"

    ~ Al Davis ~

  3. #348
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    6,564
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Party discipline is super easy when you are voting no or when you know that your vote won't count. A great example was Senator Capito from West Virginia. She has recently expressed concern about the drastic reduction in Medicaid. Which should be excellent. Right? She realizes that the drastic cuts will hurt her voters. So why do I look at this skeptically? Well I do so because she voted along with her colleagues how many times in 2015 and 2016 to repeal Medicaid in virtually similar ways and didn't seem to express any reservations then. What changed? Well the fact that Obama was president and would never sign the bill they were voting on. But now that Trump is president, he will sign it if they tell him to do so. Now she has to be careful. She's firing with live ammo now and the consequences of a yes vote are real.
    Ah, the mechanics of politics in action...
    "..When you have great coaches, then after you have great coaches you get great players, you have a great organization, and you tell them one thing-

    Just win baby"

    ~ Al Davis ~

  4. #349
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,938
    Quote Originally Posted by jojo30 View Post
    I just dont understand why they cant just start with repealing/changing the parts of Obamacare that everyone (or at least majority) actually agrees with needs to be changed? at this point one or two baby steps in the right direction is better than nothing. Rome wasn't built in a day.
    The problem is that in order to use the reconciliation process (and only need 50 votes), the bill needs to be revenue neutral or better. So, if the Senate wishes to get rid of all the mandates and taxes, it must cut benefits elsewhere or cut spending elsewhere in the budget. Since this is the circumstances, you will always get a bill that cuts benefits and will always get a bill that will be called mean spirited by the opposition. In the current Senate version of the bill, the CBO scored it negatively on citizens who would lose coverage (22 million), however also scored it as saving $300 million, which would make it compliant with the budget reconciliation process.

    Now, of course, there is no trust on either side, so this next statement will be met with vicious criticism, but the budget reconciliation is only phase I of the process. Once that has been accomplished and the government can move onto the annual budget, it would be free to negotiate larger amounts of spending to the health care system. There are supposed to be two more phases to this process. In Phase two, there is to be reform in which insurance companies would be allowed to sell insurance across state lines, which would further save costs and open up funding to tweak the plan elsewhere.

    It really depends on what you believe is good for the country.

    If we are honest, we would all say that Obamacare is an abject failure. Premiums and deductibles have both doubled or tripled in past 5 years, young healthy people refuse to participate and insurance companies are losing hundreds of millions of dollars and pulling out of the marketplace. It's really economics 101. We cannot artificially put in price controls. Everyone wants health insurance, but wants to pay the minimum amount possible for it. This is no different than anything a consumer buys; the best, the best car, the best school, the best clothing, the best entertainment and the best dining options at the lowest prices. Yet, it is unrealistic to give the top tier of anything for the lowest cost.

    On the other hand, if we are honest with ourselves, we also know that charging a premium price for the best consumer products, will lead to consumers rejecting those products at those prices, hence millions of Americans dropping coverage. So, any plan that brings the price more in line with reality would need to either cost more or provide less. In the case of health care, this can only be accomplished from restricting the definition of essential services. This might involve removal of chiropractor services, massage therapy, birth control, invitro fertilization, cosmetic surgery and certain non-generic drugs when alternatives are available.

    To solve this dilemma, I would propose multiple tiered plans, including an inexpensive no frills basic bronze plan and much more costly silver and gold tier plans. More choice for all. If you want to keep your doctor and he's in the gold plan, you have to pay more, but you will be able to keep your doctor.

  5. #350
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Alot fearful people with alot guns.
    Posts
    7,120
    Quote Originally Posted by corralski View Post
    The mathematics of the thing require everyone to participate. The young and healthy aren 't fools, they figured out that the penalties were less than the premiums and if their need for insurance should come they can't be denied.

    I don't see a solution short of some type of single payer system and that literaly scares the **** out of me. Once you get government administrators inserted into the healthcare system it will grind to a halt....
    I don't know about that, bro. The Europeans and Canadian voters seems happy with their system. Doctors don't restriction place on them when it comes to the care of the patients.

    I have a heart problem, and I am constantly being denied testing that the doctor prescript for me, because of the limitation place by the government on them.

    I could be wrong, but a single payer system would end this government interference
    Last edited by WES445; 06-27-2017 at 10:50 AM.

  6. #351
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    75,495
    Quote Originally Posted by johnnyi View Post
    The problem is that in order to use the reconciliation process (and only need 50 votes), the bill needs to be revenue neutral or better. So, if the Senate wishes to get rid of all the mandates and taxes, it must cut benefits elsewhere or cut spending elsewhere in the budget. Since this is the circumstances, you will always get a bill that cuts benefits and will always get a bill that will be called mean spirited by the opposition. In the current Senate version of the bill, the CBO scored it negatively on citizens who would lose coverage (22 million), however also scored it as saving $300 million, which would make it compliant with the budget reconciliation process.

    Now, of course, there is no trust on either side, so this next statement will be met with vicious criticism, but the budget reconciliation is only phase I of the process. Once that has been accomplished and the government can move onto the annual budget, it would be free to negotiate larger amounts of spending to the health care system. There are supposed to be two more phases to this process. In Phase two, there is to be reform in which insurance companies would be allowed to sell insurance across state lines, which would further save costs and open up funding to tweak the plan elsewhere.

    It really depends on what you believe is good for the country.

    If we are honest, we would all say that Obamacare is an abject failure. Premiums and deductibles have both doubled or tripled in past 5 years, young healthy people refuse to participate and insurance companies are losing hundreds of millions of dollars and pulling out of the marketplace. It's really economics 101. We cannot artificially put in price controls. Everyone wants health insurance, but wants to pay the minimum amount possible for it. This is no different than anything a consumer buys; the best, the best car, the best school, the best clothing, the best entertainment and the best dining options at the lowest prices. Yet, it is unrealistic to give the top tier of anything for the lowest cost.

    On the other hand, if we are honest with ourselves, we also know that charging a premium price for the best consumer products, will lead to consumers rejecting those products at those prices, hence millions of Americans dropping coverage. So, any plan that brings the price more in line with reality would need to either cost more or provide less. In the case of health care, this can only be accomplished from restricting the definition of essential services. This might involve removal of chiropractor services, massage therapy, birth control, invitro fertilization, cosmetic surgery and certain non-generic drugs when alternatives are available.

    To solve this dilemma, I would propose multiple tiered plans, including an inexpensive no frills basic bronze plan and much more costly silver and gold tier plans. More choice for all. If you want to keep your doctor and he's in the gold plan, you have to pay more, but you will be able to keep your doctor.
    Health care inflation has been half what it has been in the recent long term trends.

  7. #352
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Alot fearful people with alot guns.
    Posts
    7,120
    Quote Originally Posted by corralski View Post
    I've seen congressional meetings and so have you. One hundred hours? That wouldn't even be enough for the mutual masterbation to be over let alone any real work get done...
    The dem process for Obamacare was way far more open to debate and had a more diverse input then this piece of trash the republicans are pushing. It had the backing of various medical groups since they were involved in the process. Obama took the time to answer question even in very hostile setting. Anyone see Trump do this?
    Hell, when ask about the president support for this bill Lindsey Graham said, " If the president says he has your back, one should watch their backs"

  8. #353
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    75,495
    Quote Originally Posted by WES445 View Post
    The dem process for Obamacare was way far more open to debate and had a more diverse input then this piece of trash the republicans are pushing. It had the backing of various medical groups since they were involved in the process. Obama took the time to answer question even in very hostile setting. Anyone see Trump do this?
    Hell, when ask about the president support for this bill Lindsey Graham said, " If the president says he has your back, one should watch their backs"
    Nope. I don't think that Trump has spoken to any Democrats except to call them names like Cryin' Chuck. But I'm surprised they haven't even made an effort to reach out to Joe Manchin. I mean that's a gimme in your "bipartisan" bingo board. He's essentially a liberal Republican.

  9. #354
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    6,564
    Quote Originally Posted by WES445 View Post
    I don't know about that, bro. The Europeans and Canadian voters seems happy with their system. Doctors don't restriction place on them when it comes to the care of the patients.

    I have a heart problem, and I am constantly being denied testing that the doctor prescript for me, because of the limitation place by the government on them.

    I could be wrong, but a single payer system would end this government interference
    My family has also had it's share of heart disease, I hope you can get the help you need.

    In my earlier posts I also stated that true control over pricing would require a single payer system. I just lack the confidence that OUR government could sufficiently administrate it. They've pretty clearly demonstrated to this point that they are not capable....
    "..When you have great coaches, then after you have great coaches you get great players, you have a great organization, and you tell them one thing-

    Just win baby"

    ~ Al Davis ~

  10. #355
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Alot fearful people with alot guns.
    Posts
    7,120
    Quote Originally Posted by corralski View Post
    My family has also had it's share of heart disease, I hope you can get the help you need.

    In my earlier posts I also stated that true control over pricing would require a single payer system. I just lack the confidence that OUR government could sufficiently administrate it. They've pretty clearly demonstrated to this point that they are not capable....
    Thanks, I have been blessed with a long live filled with love ones and friends. Either way it goes, I have no regrets.

    I do share your view on the government ability to F things ups.

  11. #356
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    6,564
    Quote Originally Posted by WES445 View Post
    The dem process for Obamacare was way far more open to debate and had a more diverse input then this piece of trash the republicans are pushing. It had the backing of various medical groups since they were involved in the process. Obama took the time to answer question even in very hostile setting. Anyone see Trump do this?
    Hell, when ask about the president support for this bill Lindsey Graham said, " If the president says he has your back, one should watch their backs"
    Neither side has had an honest bipartisan approach. The Dems did plenty of work behind doors closed the Republicans and they're doing the same now to the Dems.

    I don't like what the Rs are doing, they need to blow out the existing law and start over. Instead they're going to bastardize the law, maintain the favorable conditions for those that profit from healthcare and give those of us that try to use the system a bitter pill.

    If we want actual progress, make Congress use the same system as the unwashed masses. That would change things in a hurry....
    "..When you have great coaches, then after you have great coaches you get great players, you have a great organization, and you tell them one thing-

    Just win baby"

    ~ Al Davis ~

  12. #357
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    75,495
    How about we throw out Obamacare and raise Medicaid to something like 250% to 275% of poverty line? Anything above that and you have to buy your own. The poverty line is 12,060 in 2017.

  13. #358
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Alot fearful people with alot guns.
    Posts
    7,120
    Quote Originally Posted by corralski View Post
    Neither side has had an honest bipartisan approach. The Dems did plenty of work behind doors closed the Republicans and they're doing the same now to the Dems.

    I don't like what the Rs are doing, they need to blow out the existing law and start over. Instead they're going to bastardize the law, maintain the favorable conditions for those that profit from healthcare and give those of us that try to use the system a bitter pill.

    If we want actual progress, make Congress use the same system as the unwashed masses. That would change things in a hurry....
    Well, the republicans never intended to do a healthcare bill, they came in with the idea of ending Obamacare and as always limit entitlement programs in general. It was all the bad blood spilled in their town meeting that they adopted the Repeal/replace mantra.

    But they never went into their secret barnstorming meeting to improve benefits for the masses, but to make a tax cutting bill to help the rich. A common mantra of theirs. The proof is in the pudding. The upper 1 % gets 40 % of the tax breaks. No wonder Trump and his billionaire cabinets are pleases as punch with this bill.

    I am getting a sneaky feeling that they aren't working for us.
    Last edited by WES445; 06-27-2017 at 11:30 AM.

  14. #359
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Alot fearful people with alot guns.
    Posts
    7,120
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    Nope. I don't think that Trump has spoken to any Democrats except to call them names like Cryin' Chuck. But I'm surprised they haven't even made an effort to reach out to Joe Manchin. I mean that's a gimme in your "bipartisan" bingo board. He's essentially a liberal Republican.
    I am pretty sure they have in the back room.

  15. #360
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,938
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    How about we throw out Obamacare and raise Medicaid to something like 250% to 275% of poverty line? Anything above that and you have to buy your own. The poverty line is 12,060 in 2017.
    Perhaps we should submit this plan to the CBO and have them score it? Would it cost more or less? I'd like to see the results. There is also said to be a need for Medicaid reform. Would this impact that process? How does this tie in with young healthy people being required to work in order to get benefits?

    Overall, your proposal might be too rich from the standpoint that 275% of the poverty level is $33,165 and that is above the median wage compensation of $29,930.15 per the social security administration (see link).

    https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/central.html

    This would mean that, as a country, we would be giving free healthcare to more than 50% of the citizens. It would also de-incentivize people to get married if it would change their ability to get free healthcare. That might put more non-working partners on government healthcare with their single significant others paying for much cheaper single individual policies.

Page 24 of 41 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •