Obamacare: Say goodnight, Gracie...

[Woobie]

Yet, most on this site spend many hours promoting ideas and entities that have no physical existence. Because a form of organization has no physical existence does not mean it does not exist.

You literalists are painting yourself into a very small box.

 

[Alpo]

Abstractions, mi amigo.

To argue that there are no such things as ideas, or forms of community labeled a society is to be barking at the moon. Consciousness may not be understood, but it seems to exist. Transcendent beings have been the topic of the religious thread. I find it humorous that some would argue that societies do not exist yet, in the same breath, profess a strong belief in a higher power and ideas set for by scribes some 2500 years ago.

 

[Woobie]

Well first, I rarely ever invite discussion of a topic solely for one person in a public thread. That's what PMs are for. Of course, Bug, you are more than welcome to contribute rational, well-thought out posts. In other words, whenever you have them ghost written. (I keed, I keed, of course.)

Anyway, I actually read your post earlier this evening but wanted to let it simmer for a bit. I guess, first off, I have no conceptual problem with your proposal. Rather, there are effectiveness issues. Some of these may also apply to Woobie's perspective.

First, this idea of setting a future effective date, then hashing out the details is interesting, but makes me wonder what you thought of sequestration. The notion of affixing significant penalties to a piece of legislation dependent on some OTHER legislation is an unnecessary over-complication. But, I also think I figured out how you can get there: it is a very business-y solution. But, it is one that doesn't translate well to government. Which leads to....

Second, that future-repeal-setting legislation isn't cast in stone. ALL legislation is written in sand. After the midterms, or upon whatever whim that moves the legislative motivations, that deadline gets undone/extended/diluted. Rather than a sign of good faith or commitment, it becomes the very illusory promise you see the recently-proposed legislation as.

Finally, what you sketch out would inevitably lead to more government. I thought the last 20 years or so would be enough evidence that "government" cannot act with "simple, clear" goals. No more than a homeowners' association can. An executive can have simple, clear goals - as Obama did - but needs the assistance of Congress. Ask Trump how difficult it is to achieve simple, clear goals.

I love how you guys want to build a utopia of freedom. Honestly I do. It would be really great. But until you can get about 20M people to buy into your dream, we are stuck where we are, doing what we can to make incremental improvements.

These are good points. Bug had me swayed, but I think I'm back to my thinking of phasing in certain aspects of the repeal. We can't leave the states hanging, so an incremental decrease in who gets Medicaid benefits should be started in mid FY18 and getting down to 100% of poverty level in 4 years.

I like the workaround for the mandate, though. I think that could work.

There is no need for mandated services. This drives up premiums, and would not be hard to fix with this legislation. Ditto with mandatory beneficiaries.

The pre-existing condition portion is probably the most popular provision in the ACA. Leave that in then new legislation to drive support.

Their needs to be a conversation attached to this about the regulatory burden. Compliance and collecting payment from the government and insurers are a huge cost for doctors and hospitals. There are surely things that could be done to bring some relief.

I'm getting tired, and I can't remember the other proposals I was mulling over earlier. I'll try to get back to it tomorrow.

 

[T.Lex]

...I'm back to my thinking of phasing in certain aspects of the repeal.

Ok, but you need a catchy title for replacing parts of the ACA as we move towards repeal.

Maybe something like... replace and repeal.

 

[Woobie]

Abstractions, mi amigo.

To argue that there are no such things as ideas, or forms of community labeled a society is to be barking at the moon. Consciousness may not be understood, but it seems to exist. Transcendent beings have been the topic of the religious thread. I find it humorous that some would argue that societies do not exist yet, in the same breath, profess a strong belief in a higher power and ideas set for by scribes some 2500 years ago.

Oh I knew where you were going with it, but it still does nothing to prove this nebulous society-organism thing demands my fealty. And while I see no proof for its existence, if I did, you still would have a long way to go to convince me this justifies hiring someone to point a gun at my neighbors so I could give their stuff to someone else.

 

[Woobie]

Ok, but you need a catchy title for replacing parts of the ACA as we move towards repeal.

Maybe something like... replace and repeal.

Here's where Ryan and Trump really screwed us: They had years to craft an incremental plan that was bold enough to convince people they meant to do something beyond slap a bandaid on the bloody stump and say they did their best. They allowed an unelected official to give them an excuse to do less than they could have with the power they currently enjoy. And they had a weak marketing strategy, which is kind of surprising coming from Trump. Heck, they had trouble with the 24M uninsured thing, and Ronnie Milsap could see that was a bogus figure.

They could have bulldozed the Dems by being more aggressive on this, but they went with the cautious (conservative, you might say) approach and wrecked themselves. They own this, and they have some work to do.

 

[jamil]

Yet, most on this site spend many hours promoting ideas and entities that have no physical existence. Because a form or organization has no physical existence does not mean it does not exist.

You literalists are painting yourself into a very small box.

That just doesn't work. If you think to dismiss this subject as literalism then you really don't understand what is being said.

I work for a company. It exists on paper. It's not a real person. It's not even a building. When the company puts out products that it legally it created, in reality, that piece of paper which organizes the individuals who are executives and employees and owners didn't create ****. Those products are the accomplishments of individuals. That's not literalism in the pejorative sense you're trying to force on the conversation.

What I"m getting at is that too many people have become too used to thinking of conceptual entities as real entities, that they lose the individuality of accomplishments and failures, and rights and responsibilities. That's what I'm talking about. When people do that, especially when forming policies, they tend to favor those conceptual entities at the expense of real people. The logical conclusion of collectivist policies is that many people are made accountable for things they've had no involvement in. Much individual harm can be justified when making policy for societies rather than making policy for individuals. BTW, there's no such thing as societal harm. But there is harm caused by some individuals in society upon some other individuals in society.

So I'm not saying the accomplishments or failures of individuals don't benefit or harm other individuals in a society. But when we're talking about policy, I'll not give an ounce of respect to ideas which fancy "society", a nonexistent entity, as having any rights, or specific responsibilities, other than individuals agreeing to abide by common laws created by a representative government. Said another way, rights conferred to "society" naturally, logically, is the same thing as saying "government authority". And I'm not saying government should have zero authority. I'm not an anarchist.

 

[jamil]

Abstractions, mi amigo.

To argue that there are no such things as ideas, or forms of community labeled a society is to be barking at the moon. Consciousness may not be understood, but it seems to exist. Transcendent beings have been the topic of the religious thread. I find it humorous that some would argue that societies do not exist yet, in the same breath, profess a strong belief in a higher power and ideas set for by scribes some 2500 years ago.

As I said above, you're saying we're saying somethin we ain't saying.

 

[Alpo]

I'm sorry, but it is you who steered the meaning to suit your argument. Here is your original quote:

There's no such thing as a society. There are individuals and there are families.

My comment was made in the context of humanity at large. You quoted it in the above response.

The other "we" keeps dragging it back to taxation of the man-who-is-an-island-unto-himself.

 

[jamil]

I'm sorry, but it is you who steered the meaning to suit your argument. Here is your original quote:



My comment was made in the context of humanity at large. You quoted it in the above response.

The other "we" keeps dragging it back to taxation of the man-who-is-an-island-unto-himself.

It was in reply to a statement well suited for that.

 

[BugI02]

Ok, but you need a catchy title for replacing parts of the ACA as we move towards repeal.

Maybe something like... replace and repeal.

How about: Healthcare Hunger Games

In before the Democrats/Alpo

 

[BugI02]

I'm sorry, but it is you who steered the meaning to suit your argument. Here is your original quote:



My comment was made in the context of humanity at large. You quoted it in the above response.

The other "we" keeps dragging it back to taxation of the man-who-is-an-island-unto-himself.

Meh, so we add 'tribe' to jamils list of individuals and families. Same results

 

[PaulF]

Bernie Sanders to push single-payer heatlh care option - CNNPolitics.com

Well, there it is.

Now, in addition to an incoherent, muddled approach and infighting from their own party the President and his "allies" on the right will have to deal with the distraction of a concerted effort from the left to push The Bern's new entitlement.

I expect to start seeing a flood of overly emotional puff pieces about the merits of other single-payer systems like Denmark or Canada, each of which has a total population lower than individual states here.

I doubt that Bernie's plan has a chance at passing...but there is a chance it could push negotiations to the left as voters become more comfortable and enamored with the idea of "free" healthcare.

So, Obamacare makes healthcare coverage more affordable for some people (the media throws out a figure of 20 million), but adds to costs overall due to the mandated benefits...

...but does repeal really = reduction of costs? How? Any reduction in expenditure experienced by the insurers would be accompanied by a loss in revenue. If, on balance, there is any difference in those amounts ("profit"), those funds will be distributed among the executives as "bonuses", or (as a last resort) paid as dividends to the shareholders. The premiums paid by buyers will continue to increase, because no one is addressing the core problem: there is insufficient transparency and competition in the retail healthcare marketplace to drive consumer prices down.

Consumer costs have to be reduced, or insurance premiums will only increase to cover the rising expense...why isn't anyone talking about that in DC?

 

[Thor]

They just need to start by repealing the bloody thing. It's not like health care is going to evaporate because the perpetually needy (greedy) are standing around waiting for the government to give it to them.

Maybe they'd have to choose a doctors visit over live streaming movies at home or something...I know heartless making them choose and pay for it themselves.

 

[Thor]

This is the bill they need to pass.

"Effective as of Dec. 31, 2017, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted,"

And that's it - one sentence.

Rep. Mo Brooks files bill to repeal Obamacare | AL.com

 

[jamil]

This is the bill they need to pass.

"Effective as of Dec. 31, 2017, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted,"

And that's it - one sentence.

Rep. Mo Brooks files bill to repeal Obamacare | AL.com

Sure. That's what it needs to be. But not enough Republicans agree with that to get that passed.

 

[T.Lex]

This is the bill they need to pass.

"Effective as of Dec. 31, 2017, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted,"

And that's it - one sentence.

Rep. Mo Brooks files bill to repeal Obamacare | AL.com

"Need to do" and "can do" are 2 very different things in a legislative assembly.

There is a laundry list of things Congress has "needed" to do from a policy perspective for a few generations, that never really seem to get done.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

"Need to do" and "can do" are 2 very different things in a legislative assembly.

There is a laundry list of things Congress has "needed" to do from a policy perspective for a few generations, that never really seem to get done.

Now, you're coming around to my way of thinking.

And why ObamaCare can never be whittled away.

 

[Alpo]

Meh, so we add 'tribe' to jamils list of individuals and families. Same results

Doesn't matter who you allow in your sandbox. You want to rule on the best flavor of Jello.

Trump has made America Ordinary again. The republicans have no idea how to accomplish anything.

God forbid you got the deal you voted for.

 

[actaeon277]

Well, maybe we should just model healthcare on the VA.
After all, it's done such a WONDERFUL job.