Politics

[wizards8507]

I wish both sides would simply do their fuqing job and work together.

Exactly backwards. Republicans were elected in this cycle specifically to be the "party of no." The electorate hates Obamacare, amnesty, and whatever it is Obama is agreeing to with the Chinese about climate change. They don't want government to "get things done" just for getting-things-done's sake if those "things" are crap ideas. Gridlock is a feature of our Constitution, not a flaw. Gridlock is intentional and helps ensure that only the very best ideas get through.

Logic: If the electorate wanted the Republicans to "work with Obama" for the next two years, they would have voted for Democrats.

 

[GoIrish41]

1. The "very rich" don't have insurance because they use the world class doctors that don't accept it.

2. Poor people already had Medicaid. Why do you lefties always ignore this point? If you were poor or disabled, you ALREADY HAD government-provided health insurance.

3. The people who have signed up are not people who always wanted insurance but couldn't get it (see #2). The people who signed up are people who didn't want it in the first place but are now forced to get it.

4. "Fixing the system" means lowering costs, not shuffling around who pays for the higher costs (whether higher premiums, individual mandates, or taxation to fund a national system). Lower costs means tort reform, competition among providers, and giving individuals the ability to shop for care with price as a consideration.

The economics of a healthcare transaction are complicated and they're the reason costs are so high. When you go in for a checkup, you don't care how much the doctor charges because you're not paying for it anyways. The doctor just wants to get paid and the insurance company wants to pay as little as possible. The goals aren't aligned. If you were shopping based on price (by removing the insurance company from the picture), the doctor would have to shift his focus into providing the best service at the best rates because he's going to lose business if he doesn't. The insurance model is based on flawed incentives.

EDIT: You're providing valuable insight into the mind of the rank-and-file Democrat base. I always wonder what percentage of progressives are "in on it" when it comes to making up these lies and how many of them just fall for it. People like Obama and Professor Gruber know that Obamacare, environmental regulations, and amnesty are all about control, but they trick you "true believers" into thinking you're supporting access to healthcare, prevention of global warming, and social justice.

1. The "very rich" are those who are making money off of the current system at the expense of the poor -- insurance company executives who have the ability to deny claims because they don't fit the business model.

2. Not all poor people have Medicaid. If they did, there would not be an issue. The working poor who do not have access because they make too much that they are over the stupidly low thresholds for access to that program, but too little to actually afford to pay the ever increasing expenses of health insurance. These are the problems Obamacare was designed to tackle ... if they don't tackle those issues, then provide an alternative ... the old system sucked.

3. Are there cases of this? Sure. But, by and large you are wrong -- see above.

4. Lowering costs involves a lot of things, including regulations with teeth to ensure that healthcare providers and insurers aren't just going back to the same preditory behaviors that made costs skyrocket for consumers and ruined healthcare in this country in the first place. , but I don't measure everything with a single metric. Success means expanded access to quality healthcare, preferably to everyone in the country.

I do not disagree with your first un-numbered paragraph, except that I think that health providers, insurers, and pharm companies conspire to create escalating costs. I don't think that they are out of alignment at all. Add in the Pharm industry and you have a really greedy triad working against citizens. Think about how insurance plans work -- you can pick from a list of approved doctors who have agreements about how much they will charge for certain services. Pharm reach lucrative agreements with doctors, who agree to perscribe their medicines to patients, and the pharm companies work with the insurers to get their drugs covered under those insurance plans. All of them work together to provide a system that, as you said, keeps consumers in the dark about ever-escalating costs.

Your edit is just silly political nonsense. Keep that crap to yourself.

 

[Rack Em]

I want to clarify that this wasn't an "Obamacare or no change" type scenario. If Romney would have won the election, he had "Romneycare", which had a ton of similarities to Obamacare. Here are some of those similarities:



Here are some differences:


Romneycare Vs. Obamacare: Key Similarities & Differences « CBS Boston

So some of your concerns wouldn't have been changed by Romneycare. There was still going to be a huge overhaul of the insurance landscape, albeit some differences (preexisting conditions, mandates, scope).

My concern is that if you listen to both parties talk right now, its all about "beating" the other party. "Fighting tooth and nail", "We'll use the debt ceiling as a negotiating angle", etc have all became a distinct part of the conversation. I wish both sides would simply do their fuqing job and work together. Politics has became almost a sporting event, where you have to root for one side or the other. I just want them to actually do what we pay them to do... govern our country.

I'm in class and can't read the whole thing. But I don't think we can compare what Romney did on a state level and apply that to the national level. We also don't know that he was going to get on board with ramming health care reform after closed-door meetings.

What he did was probably good for MA. It's doubtful that would work for Utah.

 

[woolybug25]

I'm in class and can't read the whole thing. But I don't think we can compare what Romney did on a state level and apply that to the national level. We also don't know that he was going to get on board with ramming health care reform after closed-door meetings.

What he did was probably good for MA. It's doubtful that would work for Utah.

With all due respect, I think we can. It was part of his platform for president. If he would have been elected, Romneycare would have been enacted.

 

[wizards8507]

I do not disagree with your first un-numbered paragraph, except that I think that health providers, insurers, and pharm companies conspire to create escalating costs. I don't think that they are out of alignment at all. Add in the Pharm industry and you have a really greedy triad working against citizens. Think about how insurance plans work -- you can pick from a list of approved doctors who have agreements about how much they will charge for certain services. Pharm reach lucrative agreements with doctors, who agree to perscribe their medicines to patients, and the pharm companies work with the insurers to get their drugs covered under those insurance plans. All of them work together to provide a system that, as you said, keeps consumers in the dark about ever-escalating costs.

Let's leave the theoretical world and enter "real life" for a second.

You blame the cost of health care on an unholy alliance of health providers, insurance companies, and big pharma (through, I presume, some combination of malfeasance and incompetence). To fix this, you propose a single-payer system that provides free healthcare to everyone by introducing the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT into this mix? Seriously? CIGNA and GSK are not to be trusted but let's put our faith in that bastion of efficiency and integrity, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!? Be real.

 

[woolybug25]

Exactly backwards. Republicans were elected in this cycle specifically to be the "party of no." The electorate hates Obamacare, amnesty, and whatever it is Obama is agreeing to with the Chinese about climate change. They don't want government to "get things done" just for getting-things-done's sake if those "things" are crap ideas. Gridlock is a feature of our Constitution, not a flaw. Gridlock is intentional and helps ensure that only the very best ideas get through.

Logic: If the electorate wanted the Republicans to "work with Obama" for the next two years, they would have voted for Democrats.

You can't have it both ways. You get mad about executive orders and Obama not working with the Republicans, but now you think its all part of how the constitution works when it's the other way around? So when is it not supposed to be a gridlock? When are they supposed to get things done? When are they supposed to work together and put the American people first?

In your ideal system, the American people would always come second to gridlock and political positioning. I don't think that is what the founding fathers had in mind.

 

[wizards8507]

With all due respect, I think we can. It was part of his platform for president. If he would have been elected, Romneycare would have been enacted.

I think you're probably right, but you're over simplifying this debate by using Romney and Obama as surrogates for the conservative/Republican and liberal/Democrat bases. I could be wrong, but I don't think many of us arguing against Obamacare would have picked Romney as our first choice in 2012. Hating what Obama did is not the same as advocating for what Romney would have done.

 

[Hammer Of The Gods]

I think you're probably right, but you're over simplifying this debate by using Romney and Obama as surrogates for the conservative/Republican and liberal/Democrat bases. I could be wrong, but I don't think many of us arguing against Obamacare would have picked Romney as our first choice in 2012. Hating what Obama did is not the same as advocating for what Romney would have done.

Bingo. I'm tired of Voting Against someone. I want to vote FOR someone. I think its a long shot, but I stand with Rand

 

[woolybug25]

I think you're probably right, but you're over simplifying this debate by using Romney and Obama as surrogates for the conservative/Republican and liberal/Democrat bases. I could be wrong, but I don't think many of us arguing against Obamacare would have picked Romney as our first choice in 2012. Hating what Obama did is not the same as advocating for what Romney would have done.

I agree. I'm not trying to put words in people's mouths. I'm just trying to point out that many people are blaming Obama for things that Romney would have also done with his plan. Saying that it was all Obama's fault is disingenuous when you consider the fact that nationalized healthcare was coming from both parties.

 

[GoIrish41]

Education is not a right. If we decide as a society (and we have) that education is something we should provide, then so be it. But it is not a RIGHT.


Same as education. Highways and other public goods are not rights.


States with voter ID laws should provide those IDs free of charge, thus no financial burden. As to your claim of "jumping through hoops" to get an ID, give me a break.

Things that require an ID:

Alcohol
Tobacco
Bank account
Food stamps
Welfare
Medicaid
Social Security
Unemployment
Employment
Renting an apartment
Buying a house
Driving a car
Buying a car
Renting a car
Air travel
Marriage
Purchasing a firearm
Adopting a pet
Adopting a child
Renting a hotel room
Buying a cell phone

If government provides rights, then government can take rights away. The purpose of "rights" is that a legitimate government CANNOT and SHALL NOT infringe upon them.

Let's use your argument about education and driving:

Alcohol -- NOT A RIGHT
Tobacco -- NOT A RIGHT
Bank account -- NOT A RIGHT
Food stamps -- NOT A RIGHT
Welfare -- NOT A RIGHT
Medicaid -- NOT A RIGHT
Social Security -- NOT A RIGHT
Unemployment -- NOT A RIGHT
Employment -- NOT A RIGHT
Renting an apartment -- NOT A RIGHT
Buying a house -- NOT A RIGHT
Driving a car -- NOT A RIGHT
Buying a car -- NOT A RIGHT
Renting a car -- NOT A RIGHT
Air travel -- NOT A RIGHT
Marriage -- NOT A RIGHT
Purchasing a firearm -- NOT A RIGHT (at least in my reading of the Constitution)
Adopting a pet -- NOT A RIGHT
Adopting a child -- NOT A RIGHT
Renting a hotel room -- NOT A RIGHT
Buying a cell phone -- NOT A RIGHT

If these mytical god-given rights are so special, why would you use these examples when they are clearly irrelevant. Voting IS A RIGHT defined and codified in the Constitution so comparing any of the above, as your arguemnt goes, is a non-starter.

Your insistance that the government is some entity other than the people of this country is puzzeling to me. The people decide -- that's why we have elections. If those representatives do a poor job, they can be voted out. It is also why the corrupting influence of money is so troubling in elections because it removes power from the people and places it in the hands of those with the most wealth -- like insurance companies who wish to retain control over health decisions because there is good money in saying no.

 

[wizards8507]

You can't have it both ways. You get mad about executive orders and Obama not working with the Republicans, but now you think its all part of how the constitution works when it's the other way around?

Obama doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do what he's doing via executive order. "Having it both ways" is not about Democrat versus Republican, it's about the powers of the executive branch versus the powers of congress. Congress writes and passes bills and the President signs them into law. That's how it's supposed to work.

So when is it not supposed to be a gridlock? When are they supposed to get things done? When are they supposed to work together and put the American people first?

You assume "doing things" is the same as "putting the American people first." The American people hate Obamacare. "Doing" Obamacare was NOT the same as putting the people first because the people hate it. Sometimes "NOT doing things" is what it takes to put the people first. The two parties "worked together" to pass the Patriot Act and that was a pile of shit law that screwed the American people.

 

[wizards8507]

Let's use your argument about education and driving:

Alcohol -- NOT A RIGHT
Tobacco -- NOT A RIGHT
Bank account -- NOT A RIGHT
Food stamps -- NOT A RIGHT
Welfare -- NOT A RIGHT
Medicaid -- NOT A RIGHT
Social Security -- NOT A RIGHT
Unemployment -- NOT A RIGHT
Employment -- NOT A RIGHT
Renting an apartment -- NOT A RIGHT
Buying a house -- NOT A RIGHT
Driving a car -- NOT A RIGHT
Buying a car -- NOT A RIGHT
Renting a car -- NOT A RIGHT
Air travel -- NOT A RIGHT
Marriage -- NOT A RIGHT
Purchasing a firearm -- NOT A RIGHT (at least in my reading of the Constitution)
Adopting a pet -- NOT A RIGHT
Adopting a child -- NOT A RIGHT
Renting a hotel room -- NOT A RIGHT
Buying a cell phone -- NOT A RIGHT

If these mytical god-given rights are so special, why would you use these examples when they are clearly irrelevant. Voting IS A RIGHT defined and codified in the Constitution so comparing any of the above, as your arguemnt goes, is a non-starter.

Actually, ALL of those things are rights as subsets of the right to liberty. In other words, I should be able to do whatever the hell I want as long as it doesn't interfere with YOUR ability to do whatever the hell YOU want.

EDIT: Have you ever read Locke? I'm not being snarky, I really want to know.

 

[GoIrish41]

Actually, ALL of those things are rights as subsets of the right to liberty. In other words, I should be able to do whatever the hell I want as long as it doesn't interfere with YOUR ability to do whatever the hell YOU want.

EDIT: Have you ever read Locke? I'm not being snarky, I really want to know.

All of those things are rights as subsets of the right to liberty, but education and driving are not. Got it.

 

[GoIrish41]

Let's leave the theoretical world and enter "real life" for a second.

You blame the cost of health care on an unholy alliance of health providers, insurance companies, and big pharma (through, I presume, some combination of malfeasance and incompetence). To fix this, you propose a single-payer system that provides free healthcare to everyone by introducing the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT into this mix? Seriously? CIGNA and GSK are not to be trusted but let's put our faith in that bastion of efficiency and integrity, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!? Be real.

I'm suggesting that profit motive hanging over something as life altering as healthcare is terrible on its face. Having a self-interested third party make healtcare deciisions about what will and will not be covered is obscene. Again, you act as if the government is some thing that exists in a vaccum, that it is not what the citizens want/allow it to be. Right now, we are allowing it to be an enterprise that is controlled by the rich and powerful (thanks citizens united). Don't pretend that companies like CIGNA and GSK and the federal government are mutually exclusive entities. One is funding the other at the expense of the citizens of this country to continue to set the conditions for future financial gain.

 

[wizards8507]

All of those things are rights as subsets of the right to liberty, but education and driving are not. Got it.

You have the right to pursue an education, but that doesn't not mean you have the right to be educated. You can seek an education but nobody is under the obligation to educate you.

Likewise, you have the right to operate a motor vehicle, but nobody is under the obligation to provide you with roads to drive on.

 

[phgreek]

While I understand what you are saying in the above, I think that analogy is flawed. With each instance you were talking about, there comes a point in time where you enter into the insurance agreement. That point typically occurs when you acquire the asset (home, car, etc) or have something to protect (Life insurance when you are trying to protect loved ones from your ultimate demise). Conversely, health insurance is needed from birth. However, if you were born with a "pre-existing" condition, you may never be able to acquire health insurance.

While I loathe Obamacare, there are bright spots here and there. The pre-existing conditions is one place where I am happy there was a change. Doesn't mean I agree with how it is handled today or within the law itself (I actually think it is idiotic), just that it is improved from what it once was.

I've never seen health insurance work that way...My kids both have rare and uncurable issues with their eyes...they've been on my insurance since day 1, and their eye specialists are covered. I think it depends on your insurance/group etc. As well I've been on the front lines purchasing insurance plans for various companies. Never ran into what you cite.

Anoter example: my wife was in a car accident, and is on a lifetime does of human growth hormone to replace malfunctioning pituitary which was injured in the wreck. That was covered by our new insurance pre-obamycare. In fact we've had more difficulties since passage of obamycare.

I am not saying my experience is some governing precedent, but I can say congenital issues at birth seem not to be treated as re-existing conditions. And my wife's issue did not preclude her from receiving coverage and care.

Now, to the larger point...I never liked the pre-existing conditions exclusions...but if folks would stop for a moment and recall that the "good" stuff was implemented long before the disastrous exchanges came to be. Seemed to me like insurance companies baked that coverage into the rates at the time, as they did bump rates. That means limited legislation could have dealt with alot of the issues folks cared about...W/O creating a government agency, and an army of IRS people assigned to ACA.

 

[phgreek]

I agree. I'm not trying to put words in people's mouths. I'm just trying to point out that many people are blaming Obama for things that Romney would have also done with his plan. Saying that it was all Obama's fault is disingenuous when you consider the fact that nationalized healthcare was coming from both parties.

assuming that was the case...I'm nowhere near as convinced as you that was an eventuality with a Romney Presidency because he would have had to contend with his own party...how many Rs voted for ACA? Would Romney have had the political courage to push for legislation or even fail to veto legislation that was firewalled along party lines...My vote is NOPE!

 

[pumpdog20]

The bold is so true. True healthcare reform needs to start with the providers, not the insurance companies.
No one can explain to me why my 90 minute ACL surgery resulted in two claims totaling ~$90K. Seriously, I've asked the surgeon, the office manager, the billing department for the surgeon, the facility specialists, the facility's billing department, and the insurance company....no one can explain why it costs that much.

Thank you... it's beyond silly why the insurance companies get all the blame in this whole argument.

 

[wizards8507]

I'm suggesting that profit motive hanging over something as life altering as healthcare is terrible on its face. Having a self-interested third party make healtcare deciisions about what will and will not be covered is obscene.

You're ignoring competition. If there was ONE third party making those decisions, then there would be a problem. If there are twenty different options for "third party," then it's not nearly as bad. If CIGNA doesn't cover something that I think should be covered, I'm free to shop around and go with AETNA, Blue Cross, or whoever else. In order to earn my business, those companies need to compete based on quality and price. The more firms there are competing, the better it is for the consumer. In an equilibrium market with enough competing firms, costs would get so low that you'd literally be paying pennies above actual cost for your insurance. Here's how health insurance would work in a liberated market:

Step 1. Only one insurance company exists. They charge exorbitant prices and makes a boat load of profit. Consumers are unhappy but they have no choice.

Step 2. Startup firms see the big pile of money that the insurance company is making and decide "let me get in on that." A handful of firms enter the market and compete with one another. Prices drop somewhat and consumers have a handful of choices, but costs are still high and choices few.

Step 3. More and more firms enter the market as they see the potential profitability of running an insurance company. As they do, the new and existing firms continually need to lower prices and offer new and better plans to attract new consumers. Features like free birth control and coverage for same-sex partners are offered as ways to bring customers in.

Step 4. Too many firms have entered the market. In order to stay afloat, companies begin offering insurance below cost. Firms that are unable to keep up drop out of the market until prices tick back up slightly to reach market equilibrium. The equilibrium price is the price at which firms can pay claims, salaries, and administrative costs and "break even." If prices rise above or below equilibrium, firms enter and leave the market accordingly.

The problem is, we're stuck at #2 because it's too difficult to enter the insurance market due to oppressive legislation. Thus, consumers are left with very few choices and there isn't enough competition to get prices down. Barriers of entry have us in an oligopoly as opposed to the ideal monopolistic competition (has nothing to do with "monopoly"). Your single payer system would have us stuck at step 1, with NO options and no profit motive to keep costs in check (an ACTUAL, government-mandated monopoly).

Again, you act as if the government is some thing that exists in a vaccum, that it is not what the citizens want/allow it to be.

The bureaucracy DOES exist in a vacuum. I don't elect the IRS, FDA, CDC, or EPA.

 

[woolybug25]

assuming that was the case...I'm nowhere near as convinced as you that was an eventuality with a Romney Presidency because he would have had to contend with his own party...how many Rs voted for ACA? Would Romney have had the political courage to push for legislation or even fail to veto legislation that was firewalled along party lines...My vote is NOPE!

It's hard in today's climate to look back and see a healthcare change under Republicans. But it was indeed a campaign promise. He made no bones about it. People on both sides of the aisle agreed that healthcare was something that needed to be addressed. Simply taking no action would have been political suicide for Republicans. There is no way to say one way or the other if Romney would have simply lied and not taken any action. I personally believe that pressure would have certainly made him take some kind of action, especially with a Dem led house/senate pointing it out. I personally didn't support Romney, but I don't think that he would have simply lied and taken zero action. It would have been a major talking point throughout his presidency.

 

[pumpdog20]

Let's use your argument about education and driving:

Alcohol -- NOT A RIGHT
Tobacco -- NOT A RIGHT
Bank account -- NOT A RIGHT
Food stamps -- NOT A RIGHT
Welfare -- NOT A RIGHT
Medicaid -- NOT A RIGHT
Social Security -- NOT A RIGHT
Unemployment -- NOT A RIGHT
Employment -- NOT A RIGHT
Renting an apartment -- NOT A RIGHT
Buying a house -- NOT A RIGHT
Driving a car -- NOT A RIGHT
Buying a car -- NOT A RIGHT
Renting a car -- NOT A RIGHT
Air travel -- NOT A RIGHT
Marriage -- NOT A RIGHT
Purchasing a firearm -- NOT A RIGHT (at least in my reading of the Constitution)
Adopting a pet -- NOT A RIGHT
Adopting a child -- NOT A RIGHT
Renting a hotel room -- NOT A RIGHT
Buying a cell phone -- NOT A RIGHT

If these mytical god-given rights are so special, why would you use these examples when they are clearly irrelevant. Voting IS A RIGHT defined and codified in the Constitution so comparing any of the above, as your arguemnt goes, is a non-starter.

Your insistance that the government is some entity other than the people of this country is puzzeling to me. The people decide -- that's why we have elections. If those representatives do a poor job, they can be voted out. It is also why the corrupting influence of money is so troubling in elections because it removes power from the people and places it in the hands of those with the most wealth -- like insurance companies who wish to retain control over health decisions because there is good money in saying no.

True, it's also a right that can be taken away (i.e. commit a felony). So, while it is true that it's a right, you still have to follow the rules. Being required to have an ID, is just a rule in order to vote.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Originally Posted by tussin

The bold is so true. True healthcare reform needs to start with the providers, not the insurance companies.
No one can explain to me why my 90 minute ACL surgery resulted in two claims totaling ~$90K. Seriously, I've asked the surgeon, the office manager, the billing department for the surgeon, the facility specialists, the facility's billing department, and the insurance company....no one can explain why it costs that much.

Thank you... it's beyond silly why the insurance companies get all the blame in this whole argument.

Private, for-profit insurance companies take a huge part of the blame because they suddenly began setting guidelines for what the standard of care is in a lot of health fields. They basically gave themselves the right to just flat-out deny certain treatments, thus creating a major issue with healthcare providers bottom line and eventually causing a massive negative trickle-down effect. Prices skyrocket in part because of the provider needing to earn a profit and keep their doors open. And when insurance companies have shitty reimbursement rates or flat-out deny to pay for a treatment, it makes it that much more difficult.

 

[phgreek]

It's hard in today's climate to look back and see a healthcare change under Republicans. But it was indeed a campaign promise. He made no bones about it. People on both sides of the aisle agreed that healthcare was something that needed to be addressed. Simply taking no action would have been political suicide for Republicans. There is no way to say one way or the other if Romney would have simply lied and not taken any action. I personally believe that pressure would have certainly made him take some kind of action, especially with a Dem led house/senate pointing it out. I personally didn't support Romney, but I don't think that he would have simply lied and taken zero action. It would have been a major talking point throughout his presidency.

...maybe. Rs are tethered to things like truth and campaign promises far more than Ds. Look at GHWB...No New Taxes...that poor bastard got eaten for that...so I'll concede it may have cost Romney a second term if someone could roll out a tape of him promising it.

I honestly never heard the man definitively state he would reform healthcare like MA at the national level, or any semblance of a similar approach. I only heard him state that those decisions belong at the state level, and that was not the scope of the Federal Government. I heard him point out practical differences between the two as well.

This is more representative of what I heard him say...sorry LOOONG:

Chris Wallace Grills Mitt Romney on Health Care (Part 1) - YouTube

Is it possible he had some point in his life he thought about doing healthcare at a national level...I guess so, but I did not hear it in the 2012 presidential campaign.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I've never seen health insurance work that way...My kids both have rare and uncurable issues with their eyes...they've been on my insurance since day 1, and their eye specialists are covered. I think it depends on your insurance/group etc. As well I've been on the front lines purchasing insurance plans for various companies. Never ran into what you cite.
Anoter example: my wife was in a car accident, and is on a lifetime does of human growth hormone to replace malfunctioning pituitary which was injured in the wreck. That was covered by our new insurance pre-obamycare. In fact we've had more difficulties since passage of obamycare.

I am not saying my experience is some governing precedent, but I can say congenital issues at birth seem not to be treated as re-existing conditions. And my wife's issue did not preclude her from receiving coverage and care.

Now, to the larger point...I never liked the pre-existing conditions exclusions...but if folks would stop for a moment and recall that the "good" stuff was implemented long before the disastrous exchanges came to be. Seemed to me like insurance companies baked that coverage into the rates at the time, as they did bump rates. That means limited legislation could have dealt with alot of the issues folks cared about...W/O creating a government agency, and an army of IRS people assigned to ACA.

On the first part, it wasn't about being covered as a child when you parents have health insurance, b/c your experience is typical of that. It was more towards the idea that when the children have to get their own policy, they would be at risk of not being carried by some insurers since what they would be needing treatment for would be "pre-existing".

About your wife (I hope all is going well in that department), I think this would fall more into the getting insurance once they needed it. This example would be more analogous to the OP if she only wanted insurance after she needed the coverage.

In any event, the point that I didn't clearly articulate is that the typical insurance policies are for assets that your currently own or jointly own (whether that is home, car, etc, with the understanding that life insurance could fall outside that parameter). Children's health insurance was largely a result of parental insurance or state provided insurance. If that child was born with a condition that required expensive treatments, when that child fell off the parents plan or no longer qualified for state provided children's insurance, there would be a risk of not being fully covered due the "pre-existing" condition.

To the last part, I agree 100%

 

[woolybug25]

...maybe. Rs are tethered to things like truth and campaign promises far more than Ds. Look at GHWB...No New Taxes...that poor bastard got eaten for that...so I'll concede it may have cost Romney a second term if someone could roll out a tape of him promising it.

I honestly never heard the man definitively state he would reform healthcare like MA at the national level, or any semblance of a similar approach. I only heard him state that those decisions belong at the state level, and that was not the scope of the Federal Government. I heard him point out practical differences between the two as well.

This is more representative of what I heard him say...sorry LOOONG:

Chris Wallace Grills Mitt Romney on Health Care (Part 1) - YouTube

Is it possible he had some point in his life he thought about doing healthcare at a national level...I guess so, but I did not hear it in the 2012 presidential campaign.

I agree that his version would have been much more scaled back, and to be realistic, most Presidents only deliver on less than half of their campaign promises. But Romney indeed did promise to replace Obamacare with his own version of a healthcare act. Much of which, aligned with our current system outside of some distinct differences (ie religious freedom, mandates, pre existing condtions, etc).

I will improve healthcare by getting it to work more like a consumer market, and I will repeal and replace Obamacare. Individuals will be able to buy their own health insurance policies, either through their employer or directly. And the kind of competition we see in everything from auto insurance to cell phones to broadband will finally slow the growth of healthcare costs.

Romney - May 8th, 2012

 

[GoIrish41]

I agree that his version would have been much more scaled back, and to be realistic, most Presidents only deliver on less than half of their campaign promises. But Romney indeed did promise to replace Obamacare with his own version of a healthcare act. Much of which, aligned with our current system outside of some distinct differences (ie religious freedom, mandates, pre existing condtions, etc).

That quote/campaign promise sounds a lot like he was going to go back to how it was before Obamacare.

 

[phgreek]

I agree that his version would have been much more scaled back, and to be realistic, most Presidents only deliver on less than half of their campaign promises. But Romney indeed did promise to replace Obamacare with his own version of a healthcare act. Much of which, aligned with our current system outside of some distinct differences (ie religious freedom, mandates, pre existing condtions, etc).

..I heard repeal and replace.... I guess I tended to believe that "replace" was a political creation which meant reform the right way...but I don't think there would have been a mandate of any kind...that said, I don't know that...so I'll cede the point Romney was in trouble with his statement had he not framed a replacement as a "system" of some sort. It would have been too easy to hang him with "replace" if your expectation was a "thing/system" he'd replace ACA with...

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

So, to hell with the millions of people who now have health insurance that did not before? Dismantle the mechanism that allowed them to take their kids to the doctor, removes the obsticle of access to those with pre-existing conditions? Makes it possible for young people under 25 to remain on parents insurance plans? Sounds like a sound plan to attract voters in 2016. If there are things that the Republicans think is wrong with the law, work to correct them. It would be a political mistake for them to try to unbake the Obamacare cake, but I suspect that they will not be able to resist the temtation to score quick political points with their base, which will push the issue front and center again in 2016. If I'm a candidate, I would not want to defend my record of stripping poor people of their insurance plans. There is a reason that it was not a major issue during the mid-term elections -- because it is working. People like it, and unlike the mid-term cycle, Democrats come out to vote when there is a presidential race.

So delusional. If you define "working" as a group of people being subsidized by another group of people, then yes it's working. 60% of the country wants it repealed and people DON'T like it, particularly middle class families and small/ mid size business owners.

People with boat loads of money, big business, the poor who are already subsidized, and politicians who aren't affected by it don't care.

Other than that, I'd say you hit the nail on the head.

Wizards brought up a strong point earlier and I've mentioned it before in regards to ACA: if medicaid worked so well and solved all the economic and health care problems, we would never need ACA. Just dumping gas on the fire here.

 

[pkt77242]

So delusional. If you define "working" as a group of people being subsidized by another group of people, then yes it's working. 60% of the country wants it repealed and people DON'T like it, particularly middle class families and small/ mid size business owners.

People with boat loads of money, big business, the poor who are already subsidized, and politicians who aren't affected by it don't care.

Other than that, I'd say you hit the nail on the head.

Wizards brought up a strong point earlier and I've mentioned it before in regards to ACA: if medicaid worked so well and solved all the economic and health care problems, we would never need ACA. Just dumping gas on the fire here.

Can you explain that a little more, as Medicaid and ACA go after two different groups.

Also what economic problems is medicaid supposed to solve?

 

[phgreek]

On the first part, it wasn't about being covered as a child when you parents have health insurance, b/c your experience is typical of that. It was more towards the idea that when the children have to get their own policy, they would be at risk of not being carried by some insurers since what they would be needing treatment for would be "pre-existing".

About your wife (I hope all is going well in that department), I think this would fall more into the getting insurance once they needed it. This example would be more analogous to the OP if she only wanted insurance after she needed the coverage.

In any event, the point that I didn't clearly articulate is that the typical insurance policies are for assets that your currently own or jointly own (whether that is home, car, etc, with the understanding that life insurance could fall outside that parameter). Children's health insurance was largely a result of parental insurance or state provided insurance. If that child was born with a condition that required expensive treatments, when that child fell off the parents plan or no longer qualified for state provided children's insurance, there would be a risk of not being fully covered due the "pre-existing" condition.

To the last part, I agree 100%

Ah...I see your point...there was a time where an individual not joining a group plan could struggle mightily.