Senate Blocks GOP Health Bill

[Jonathan Brown]

I'm not arguing that Obamacare isn't a bad law. I'm arguing that these repeal attempts were not the right solutions. Too many folks would be hurt. Throwing around charts, and graphs might look good to some, but they can be made to say anything. Debate 101 tells you to try and baffle with numbers and figures. then try semantics next. None of it changes what would have happens if these bad laws had passed.

[edogg]

There are no personal attacks. I find fault with your bullshit opinions. The words put on a page. You are probably a nice guys. But I'd bet you haven't had any relatives that needed Medicaid. It's easy to sit back and complain about Medicaid when you haven't seen its value in person. I agree that making healthy younger people pay for everything isn't the best system. This is the part they need to fix the most. Disgustingly high deductables are criminal. But on the other hand, everybody gets old. Not everybody can afford $9000 a month for a nursing home.

I repeat....when did the republican party become the party without compassion?

You cannot just dump Obamacare. It needs to be fixed while it's still in place. They need to get to work on REAL changes. Not what they have proposed so far.

My brother is disabled and is on Medicare/Medicaid. He can't find a dentist willing to take it so goes to Lake Washington Tech to have a student clean his teeth. But hey, he has insurance (sort of because Medicare is not really insurance as pointed out) so everything is rosy for him! Right?

Obamacare is crap. Obamacare solved nothing and made things worse. For every one person you can find who was made better for it, I bet I can find 10 who were harmed by it.

One example: my mom's older, low income friend with lots of medical conditions was excited at the prospect of cheap good insurance in spite of his preexisting conditions. Then he found out how much the insurance cost. Then he saw the deductible and how useless the insurance will be. And the fact that he's required to buy it or pay a fine (or tax if you want to call it that). Oh and the cheap plan he was on which actually covered his needs was cancelled because it didn't cover the crap he doesn't need like birth control.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jonathan Brown]

That doesn't address my question. It has nothing to do with justification. If they did pay those mortgages, would it be right to kick them out so you could give tax breaks to the rich? Or would it be best to find some solution that wouldn't leave them on the street?

If giving them the original mortgage money was unjustified, then I don't think a "soft landing" is necessary, and I don't think it matters what you do with the money you save -- tax breaks for the rich, money for the poor, whatever. What you do with the money has nothing to do with the problem you're fixing.

As to your question that you can't get answered, I would give you a direct answer but I'm not tracking the issue closely enough to really know what I'm talking about. I just know that just because someone gives you $20 for Christmas this year, doesn't mean that they owe you $20 for Christmas next year.

Its simple.

Did they or did they NOT, try to drop millions of people off Medicaid to raise money, all the while offering tax cuts to the rich?

This is what they attempted to do. It's public record.

Bye for now...got things to do.

[edogg]

True compassion lies in repealing the ACA right away.

Under the ACA, cash strapped docs who accept medicaid don't have the resources to do condition and liability-free pro-bono care and docs who don't take medicaid are practically forbidden for liabilittle reasons because the government doesn't like docs shaming them with better free care than their lowballing medicaid setups.

I know orthos who used to do pro bono hip replacements for seniors and now they can't thanks to the ACA's thousands of new regulations.

So in reality the elderly are worse off.

Overall though I'd ask the obvious question, why are you here posting in this discussion if you refuse to discuss it? It seems strange. Not trying to be insulting, just curious.

!6 million people losing their insurance would be a catastrophe. Insurance rates would skyrocket when people who don't want to pay for their own insurance jump ship. The realities of a repeal are obvious.
You make it sound like people are dying in the streets because of the ACA. Simply not true. With the Republicans help it could have been a better bill eight years ago. Repubs just keep shitting the bed on this one.

People on individual market (i.e. Obamacare exchange) plans are NOT making money for insurance companies. The one I worked for lost money every year on the individual market except the first (people didn't realize they could and should use their coverage for that first year). We lost like tens of millions of dollars. It was our employer group business that stemmed the hemorrhaging to simple bleeding so that we only lost a couple million each year. Our finance department forecasted that we'd lose money every year for the next 5 years.

Also major companies are leaving the individual market because of this. They are willingly saying they don't want those people as customers on the plans they're allowed to offer. Even non profit companies have to make enough to cover costs and put money into reserves!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[edogg]

True compassion lies in repealing the ACA right away.

Under the ACA, cash strapped docs who accept medicaid don't have the resources to do condition and liability-free pro-bono care and docs who don't take medicaid are practically forbidden for liabilittle reasons because the government doesn't like docs shaming them with better free care than their lowballing medicaid setups.

I know orthos who used to do pro bono hip replacements for seniors and now they can't thanks to the ACA's thousands of new regulations.

So in reality the elderly are worse off.

Overall though I'd ask the obvious question, why are you here posting in this discussion if you refuse to discuss it? It seems strange. Not trying to be insulting, just curious.

We ARE having a discussion. Because I point out the faults in your logic and you obvious lack of compassion for the elderly, does not make that a non fact. What IS strange is that you think anyone who disagrees with you is automatically void of any value, so you keep harping on the same ultra right wing gibberish.

You are ignoring 90% of my points and documented evidence/sourced and focusing instead on empty emotional appeals.

Address the numeric facts of the low medicaid reimbursement rate.
Address the numeric facts of low amounts of doctors accepting medicaid.
Address the numeric facts of our declining doctor and medical student population.

Your facts are a smoke screen to the real issue.
Did they or did they NOT, try to drop millions of people off Medicaid to raise money, all the while offering tax cuts to the rich?
Come on now, you can admit it. It won't hurt. Its a FACT. You can do it.

I'll come out and say it bluntly...who cares? Read this about Medicaid:

http://theweek.com/articles/710150/medi ... aste-money

As I have argued before, Medicaid is perhaps the civilized world's worst program. It costs just as much as private plans — about $7,000 per patient — but produces worse outcomes, including higher mortality, than private coverage. So given that one of ObamaCare's dirty little secrets is that many of its Medicaid enrollees are folks kicked off their private plans due to the Medicaid expansion, the law may have actually cost — rather than saved — lives in this cohort.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PMB]

I agree with JB on this point- the replacement plan was at least as messed up as the ACA.
I disagree with JB on this point- Compassion is not the responsibility of the federal .Gov.

My family has strict instructions for my demise. The family assets are to be used by my wife and children - not one penny beyond basic needs is to be spent keeping my carcass breathing an extra day or two.

[Guns4Liberty]

the replacement plan was at least as messed up as the ACA.

That's the problem - there doesn't need to be a replacement. A replacement is just going to be Obamacare Lite. There needs to be a full repeal, and then a return to a (mostly) free market system. Aside from a few (emphasis on that word) necessary functions, government needs to get the hell out of the private healthcare market.

Compassion is not the responsibility of the federal .Gov.

Exactly. If you want to be charitable with your own money, give it directly to people in need, or give it to a private charity. Either one is more efficient than sending the $ to Washington DC anway.

My family has strict instructions for my demise. The family assets are to be used by my wife and children - not one penny beyond basic needs is to be spent keeping my carcass breathing an extra day or two.

I have given similar instructions to my family.

[Jonathan Brown]

There is compassion. And there is also abandonment. The first is a byproduct of not doing the latter. The initial program is irrelevant at this point. You can't go back in time. Nor should you abandon people with special needs.

Fix the money issues. Start by not spending billions and billions on stupid wars that have no end game. Help insurance companies help us. Stop drug companies from gouging us on drugs. Stop keeping score in congress on who "wins". We lose when they do that. Install term limits. If these assholes can't legislate, get somebody in there who can.

And still nobody has answered my earlier question.

Did they or did they NOT, try to drop millions of people off Medicaid to raise money, all the while offering tax cuts to the rich? Yes or no?

[PMB]

There is compassion. And there is also abandonment. The first is a byproduct of not doing the latter. The initial program is irrelevant at this point. You can't go back in time. Nor should you abandon people with special needs.

Fix the money issues. Start by not spending billions and billions on stupid wars that have no end game. Help insurance companies help us. Stop drug companies from gouging us on drugs. Stop keeping score in congress on who "wins". We lose when they do that. Install term limits. If these assholes can't legislate, get somebody in there who can.

I agree with all of this. Especially the part about which side of the same political coin is "winning" as the people lose.
Legislation should be about ensuring liberty, not making more laws. Some worthless fucking politicians look for bills to sponsor just so they can have their name on something, and they can go back home and crow about how much they did. Fuck sticks.

Term limits are a sad necessity to get back to a .Gov run by We The People. The Founding Fathers would be disgusted to see the likes of Harry Reid (et al, BOTH political parties!) sucking off the tit of the nation. Ball kick those leeches off.

[Guns4Liberty]

There is compassion. And there is also abandonment. The first is a byproduct of not doing the latter. The initial program is irrelevant at this point. You can't go back in time. Nor should you abandon people with special needs.

We don't disagree that the world needs compassion, and that people need care. We disagree with how to show that compassion and to provide that care. It's not through the public treasury. It's through private giving, whether it be money, time, assets, or a combination of those. The free market will always be more efficient (and compassionate) than a corrupt, bloated bureaucracy.

[Alpine]

There is compassion. And there is also abandonment. The first is a byproduct of not doing the latter. The initial program is irrelevant at this point. You can't go back in time. Nor should you abandon people with special needs.

Fix the money issues. Start by not spending billions and billions on stupid wars that have no end game. Help insurance companies help us. Stop drug companies from gouging us on drugs. Stop keeping score in congress on who "wins". We lose when they do that. Install term limits. If these assholes can't legislate, get somebody in there who can.

I agree with all of this. Especially the part about which side of the same political coin is "winning" as the people lose.
Legislation should be about ensuring liberty, not making more laws. Some worthless fucking politicians look for bills to sponsor just so they can have their name on something, and they can go back home and crow about how much they did. Fuck sticks.

Term limits are a sad necessity to get back to a .Gov run by We The People. The Founding Fathers would be disgusted to see the likes of Harry Reid (et al, BOTH political parties!) sucking off the tit of the nation. Ball kick those leeches off.

Where is the liberty in forcing people to buy a product? Where is the liberty on stealing from you to pay for some deadbeat who refuses to work?

Liberty also means personal responsibility.

But if you're worried about helping "those less fortunate" you should know we had more charity care and better health outcomes for people BEFORE the ACA. Read the Heritage Foundation report I posted earlier, it's pretty stark. If you want to save the most lives possible then repeal the ACA and replace it with... nothing.

[Jonathan Brown]

There is compassion. And there is also abandonment. The first is a byproduct of not doing the latter. The initial program is irrelevant at this point. You can't go back in time. Nor should you abandon people with special needs.

We don't disagree that the world needs compassion, and that people need care. We disagree with how to show that compassion and to provide that care. It's not through the public treasury. It's through private giving, whether it be money, time, assets, or a combination of those. The free market will always be more efficient (and compassionate) than a corrupt, bloated bureaucracy.

I don't disagree with most of that. But that is NOT my point. My point is, and has been, going back many posts, that you cannot just dump these people. WE created the program. WE allowed it to become what it is. WE cannot just pull the rug out from under them. THAT is why I keep asking the same question that nobody wants to answer. That is why these attempts at repeal have been bad. That is why it was a good thing they failed.

Did they or did they NOT, try to drop millions of people off Medicaid to raise money, all the while offering tax cuts to the rich? Yes or no?

Why you guys can't answer a simple question means to me that you agree that it was a bad thing to try and do, but it doesn't go along with your vehement support of repealing Obamacare. That is some of whats wrong with politics. You think it has to be ALL OR NOTHING. Congress thinks this way too. No compromise. My way or no way, and in the middle of all this, some bad shit can happen to a lot of people.

This IS what they tried to do. This IS why McCain fell on his sword to stop it. Not because he doesn't want repeal. I admire him for it.

[PMB]

Did they or did they NOT, try to drop millions of people off Medicaid to raise money, all the while offering tax cuts to the rich? Yes or no?

I don't follow the details, but this totally seems like the kind of thing I would expect from either party. Compassion has nothing to do with legislation. It seems to be all about money, influence, corruption and getting re-elected.
So many of our elected representatives are a simple burden to our nation. Monkeys on our collective back.

[Alpine]

Given that medicaid sucks and is killing people and that the "rich" pay most/all taxes, cutting medicaid and giving tax cuts to the people who actually pay the taxes is a win-win, it saves lives and lets people keep what they work for instead of stealing it.

https://www.cnbc.com/2013/12/11/the-ric ... taxes.html

[Jonathan Brown]

Answer my fucking question.

Did they or did they NOT, try to drop millions of people off Medicaid to raise money, all the while offering tax cuts to the rich? YES or NO?