Politics Obamacare

Re-read my post. I clearly referred to the subsidy. If a person 26 or younger can be on their parent's plan, they can not go into the exchange and claim a subsidy.

If today they are paying $0 and on 1/1/14 they pay $100/month after subsidy - their costs increased $100/month. It is not their choice. If they do not elect insurance the first year, they may face a $95 tax/fine and each year it goes up. The point is to get these people in the system and paying. Once in the system and paying - premiums and taxes/fines will be adjusted accordingly! I bet the direction will be up, up significantly, up beyond what is being stated today.

I will never remain silent when faced with bad law, or any law I strongly disagree with. Your point is lost on me. Are you saying you would not actively oppose law you thought was bad, simply because it is the law? Can you clarify what you mean?

Do we want to debate Medicare? Are you suggesting that Medicare was the only response to healthcare for the elderly or even the "best" response? I agree that it was a response.

 

Here we go again. When you say (or anyone says) "efficient" what do you mean? For example if I need an MRI, in the US I can get one today, what about Canada?

Management of MRI Wait Lists in Canada

 

Insurance companies benefit (with healthy consumers to offset the risk of being required to cover unhealthy uninsured and those with pre-exisiting conditions), hospitals benefit (to the tune of $40-50 billion/year in uncompensated care for the uninsured - some too poor to pay, others are deadbeats) and most consumers benefit (consumers in group plans have far greater consumer protections -- no more exclusions for pre-existing conditions, no more rescissions when a covered consumer gets a significant illness or disease, new limits on annual out-of-pocket expenses, new rights of appeal, new clear and concise data to consumers on coverages, deductables, etc. and uninsured have far greater choice of providers than previously existed,with all of the consumer protections as well). Win-Win-Win!

I agree, there are a few losers....young healthy uninsured, many of whom would qualify for subsidies or tax relief and ultimately benefit if they are ever faced with a serious illness or accident.

I recall the Democrats opposition to Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug Program (Medicare Part D). I think only a handful of Democrats (the most conservative) supported it. Upon passage, the Democrats did not spend the next three years vilifying it and trying to repeal it. They did not scream and shout when the web enrollment process was delayed for more than a month.

They worked in a more constructive way to improve it. Republicans can learn a lesson. But they would rather demagogue and appeal to the most extremist elements of their base.

 

You seem to know what is and what is not politically possible in a manner that appears to be supernatural. Most here would consider me extreme right and I would agree to a single payer system - assuming I could not get enough support for the reforms I would advocate. A coalition could be created in my view - based on an open and honest debate - as opposed to lies used to sell the public on Obamacare.

I have no shame in saying when I would support socialist ideas. Socialism is not inherently wrong, nor is capitalism inherently correct - I prefer capitalism, I like it, but that is me and I know not everyone does. I believe every society is actually somewhere in the middle of pure socialism and capitalism if we put the two on a continuum. Every society establishes a social contract. I also believe it is healthy to continually debate the marginal terms of the social contract.

 

Again, implying Free-Free-Free! Someone pays! The President, his supporters, you, never say who pays, why? Why not sell the plan honestly?

A few? We all are worse off unless we either reduce overall costs or improve the output - "effeciency". If the per-capita cost of health care is $10,000, including insured people and uninsured and we get result X - what in the law is going to lower per-capita cost? What is the X output and how is it going to be improved? In crafting the law they started asking the wrong questions.

11 D's voted for and 9 R's voted against. The bill had bi-partisan support, bi-partisan buy-in. It matters. It was a mistake not to get some Republican support for Obamacare.

H.R. 1 (108th): Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (On the Conference Report) -- GovTrack.us
--- merged: Oct 29, 2013 at 4:27 PM ---

Life expectancy is impacted by factors outside of healthcare - one is the murder rate in the US compared to Canada. And within healthcare, we know diet plays a big role in life expectancy, perhaps a bigger role than access to medical care! Many factors impact infant mortality rates as well.

If you want an answer of 100% I would say no - for a variety of reasons many not related to insurance or affordability. The MRI thing is just an example to illustrate a point. In some countries with "better" healthcare systems, MRI's may not be readily available but they can certainly be important in regard to an accurate diagnosis and prognosis. Also note in the US the price of services vary widely based on who is paying. In some cases the costs are very low and in other very high for no logical reason other than they charge more when they can get away with it.


MRI for $7,332 Shows Wide Variety in U.S. Medical Costs - Bloomberg

Why an MRI costs $1,080 in America and $280 in France

I agree that Obama is not a coalition builder and has demonstrated an inability to work with Republicans. I believe there are Presidents who could get it done. I recall an exchange where I discussed LBJ and his ability to get controversial and difficult legislation passed in the face of immovable opposition.

I boarder libertarianism and republicanism - the number like me is about 10% of the voting public.

 

aye, there's the rub...and the Tea Party in a nutshell.

1o% of the members of Congress (40-45 in the House, 10-12 in the Senate) putting demands on the rest rather than being more conciliatory and demonstrating a willingness to compromise and build consensus.

 

I agree.

Historically, the US has been in debt every year since the country was established with the exception of a year or two in the 1830s. There is nothing wrong with public debt; every country does it.

What is wrong is to hold the debt ceiling hostage for partisan political purposes and threaten the credit of the US. The debt ceiling has been raised over 100 times and only held hostage for partisan political gain three times, in 1995, 2011 and this year, all by Republicans in the House.

 

Actually, Andrew Jackson insisted on getting the debt paid down to zero, and he was successful. He thought that having federal debt made the country subject to the desires of its creditors -- and Jackson detested bankers and all their ilk. When you consider that we would have huge problems if the Chinese decided to stop buying our debt, you have to concede he had a point. He made it extremely but the point is valid. It just need not be applied absolutely.

 

Who is this Jackson fella you're talking about and what's it matter what he thought the US should or should not do about it's debt? Doesn't sound like anyone I've ever heard. I'll give you $20 bucks to ... Oh, wait...umm yeah never mind.

You make very good points. Or he made good points and it's good you're pointing them out. But with the current situation and our foreign debt, Chinese or other, we owe them so much at this point what happens to them if our economy and the value of our dollar takes a serious hit? My dad used to say (and I've heard this elsewhere so completely certain it's not his own work/words) if you owe the bank 100,000 dollars the bank owns you, but if you owe the bank 100,000,000 you own the bank. Of course when he said that a million dollar meant you were rich. Now you'd be upper middle class. And banks may not work the same way they did so maybe the saying isn't as true as it once was. don't know, bank and banking now seems way beyond what I learn in school years ago so I don't pretend to understand it. But owing foreign countries so much and the fact so much of the world s economy is directly affected by the US makes me wonder how much risk we're in and how much they are in.

 

Well, sure, it's as Donald Trump said to his banks: if I owe you $10 million, I have a problem. If I owe you $10 billion, you have the problem. All true.
It doesn't therefore follow that it's perfectly fine to run the debt up to $12 billion.

 

Sure. But if you owe the bank $10 million and the bank thus has a problem, does that mean that it's ok therefore to keep running the debt up?

 

Hell no. The spending needs ending. But no one wants to cut the parts they like so the dems keeps spending trying to change social issues and the GOP on give away to business and the on the DOD. They also like the war on drugs, or for that mater a war on pretty much anything. With the obvious exception war on poverty, screw them. They're all poor because they're lazy.

In the end nothing changes and we keep spending. I'll be in Mexico hoping my pension checks still clear until I pass. Though not banking on that.

 

I am all for balanced rational debt reduction that includes spending cuts, entitlement reform and revenue (tax) increases so that the burden is shared.

I'm not for asinine policies like sequestration that in effect cuts the same percent across all programs (w/ few exceptions) regardless of the impact of the cuts. Using the home budget analogy, does it make sense the cut the family food or health care budget at the same rate as the family vacation or entertainment budget?
--- merged: Oct 30, 2013 at 6:54 PM ---
And by "balanced" cuts, I am not for the Republican (Ryan's) budget proposal that would cut Medicare by $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years, effectively canceling insurance for up to 20 million seniors and forcing them to find insurance on an unregulated market (with a small stipend from the govt)....while Republicans scream that ACA is hurting millions by taking away their current insurance.

 

This is like the news coverage anymore. For example... Congressional Candidate A. says "I think this whole war on terror is over blown and much of the money could be better spent elsewhere. Candidate B. says "I believe the devil controls many of the life's of those not in my party." Now because some group somewhere has attacked or claimed each statement is at a min. borderline crazy. Each get treated equally as "some believe that remark is..." There not equal at all. Ones claiming a spending policy isn't the best use of tax funds and the other that a religious figure, no one can prove even exists is controlling people lives... but only those in the party to which they do not belong.

 

Haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if this has been mentioned....

The reason many people are "losing" their current plans is because those plans, simply put, suck ass. They do not meet minimum requirements the ACA has set out as acceptable coverage for a health plan.

So this leads to a big misconception; Many, many people seem to think that they are now having to pay way more for the same coverage. Untrue. The costs are going up for many people, but what they're getting for the money is much better coverage than they had before