Healthcare Thread (really "Sickcare" in America)

[McParadigm]

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[Peeps]

Bigger than "Read my lips, no new taxes"? I wonder which will have more lasting fallout.

not raising taxes is always a given. when a politician says it i dont think any of them mean it, it just means they will do their best to reach around as they screw us

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[McParadigm]

Bigger than "Read my lips, no new taxes"? I wonder which will have more lasting fallout.

not raising taxes is always a given. when a politician says it i dont think any of them mean it, it just means they will do their best to reach around as they screw us

I just meant that my impressions was that the "Read my lips" debacle was a bit part of why HW Bush was a single termer. Here's hoping that Trump's awful performance in his first 100 days will have the same effect.

"Read my lips" backlash burned him with the fiscal right, but had little impact on moderates and independents. Hence Ross Perot.

He'd also lost Atwater, who masterminded his 88 campaign, and had a brutally faltering economy. Plus, after 12 years, he represented the status quo in a way that's hard to overcome in Washington (hi Hillary).

[tragabigzanda]

FUCK ICE

[bune]

It's clearly not.

Aww.

[McParadigm]

GOP Senators/Reps: Well, that sucked. But we can undermine the ACA to the point of collapse, and make repeal work that way. We just need the political cost of that action to be containable, because this has already been brut-

Kansas:

[simple schoolboy]

GOP Senators/Reps: Well, that sucked. But we can allow the ACA undermine the ACA to the point of collapse (as a function of its initial drafting), and make repeal work that way.

[@SkitchP]

I hope the left gloating on this disappears quickly. The longer the gloating, the increased likelihood that they decide to target the ACA again.

I understand, and I agree with a perspective I read earlier today that this could actually be manipulated into fodder for the GOP in 18...but, christ, give it 48 hours. Liberals just spent 3 months with "you lost so shut up snowflake." And then those same douchebags crashed in the absolute dumbest, most unspinnable way possible.

Better still, it was the first time ever democrats in office were smart enough to stfu and not give them an out...which is basically a victory all it's own.

I mean...what could be better than Paul Ryan self-immolation while Schumer stays silent for a whole day at a time?

I think if it was more "YES WE'RE KEEPING THE ACA!!!" gloating it wouldnt make me so uncomfortable. Repeatedly pointing out "HAHAHA RYAN AND TRUMP AND THE GOP ARE FAILURES" just seems like something that will make them, going forward, far more resolute.

[Electromatic]

I don't think people fully realize that keeping the ACA means we're fucked and whatever plan the house is coming up with means the same.

We cannot maintain this system paying what we are paying for healthcare. It's made a lot of people fabulously wealthy and a lot of people fabulously poor or dead but that's about it.

[Biff Pocoroba]

So the House, by a super partisan breakdown, passed a bill that would negatively impact mostly the poor, the elderly, and the sick while giving the highest income earners a huge tax break? Way to play to your stereotype GOP.
It's going to be interesting in the Senate.

[B]

Lindsey Graham gives me some hope.

Of course, he also said this ...

Do Republicans really expect Democrats to vote for a bill created entirely without them in the room which makes NO consensus to their point of view?

Shit, ACA spent a year being bent from a Centrist bill to a Center-Right bill and Republicans still refused to vote for it. This one spent 18 hours being crammed up Democratic asses and the GOP is shocked, SHOCKED, that none of them voted for it.

[@SkitchP]

Lindsey Graham gives me some hope.

Of course, he also said this ...

Do Republicans really expect Democrats to vote for a bill created entirely without them in the room which makes NO consensus to their point of view?

Shit, ACA spent a year being bent from a Centrist bill to a Center-Right bill and Republicans still refused to vote for it. This one spent 18 hours being crammed up Democratic asses and the GOP is shocked, SHOCKED, that none of them voted for it.

They're not even remotely shocked. Not a one of them, even for a second. They're just playing the "THEY ARE TOO PARTISAN!!!" card

[B]

obviously.

[Superblood Wolfmoon]

obviously.

Total side note, but has anyone ever noticed how often Sean Spicer says this in his answers?

[simple schoolboy]

Lindsey Graham gives me some hope.

Of course, he also said this ...

Do Republicans really expect Democrats to vote for a bill created entirely without them in the room which makes NO consensus to their point of view?

Shit, ACA spent a year being bent from a Centrist bill to a Center-Right bill and Republicans still refused to vote for it. This one spent 18 hours being crammed up Democratic asses and the GOP is shocked, SHOCKED, that none of them voted for it.

Did it get "bent" to get Republican votes? If so, it completely failed. I suspect it got "bent" for all manner of reasons, including to get Dem votes from competitive districts. Did they not also treat the ACA as a budget bill to avoid the vote to close debate?

The Republicans are using the same dirty tricks used to impose the ACA to (potentially but unlikely) pass the AHCA. It was stupid the first time, its stupid(er?) to do it again.

[Green Habit]

Health Insurance these days is not insurance, we're paying for buying into a plan in large groups.

Uh, that's exactly what all forms of insurance are, by definition. And the way most forms of insurance are able to work is by managing the risk pools properly, including charging more or denying coverage for the riskiest. That's entirely uncontroversial for most forms of insurance, but with health insurance it creates a terrible moral problem that we generally know as the practice of vetting for pre-existing conditions.

I'm coming to think that the best way to solve the problem is to have the government dedicate part of its budget particularly to serve those with pre-existing conditions. I don't think you need to do single payer to do that--you could simply raise taxes devoted to covering those people. I'd personally prefer a public option so that people could buy in and help reduce the amount of tax revenue that's needed. Once you take care of the riskiest of pools, I think you'd see the private insurance market right its ship.

[Green Habit]

Funny you should ask, my wife made a comparison spreadsheet last night (as it relates to our own finances). Our question was whether it might be cheaper for me to set up insurance through my company (I'm the only FT employee); to buy on the open market; or for her to keep the plan we have through her job.

Keeping the plan through her job won by a significant amount. It's just about the buying power of a larger organization, you know?

I've been lucky enough to still be on an individual plan that I secured soon after I got laid off from a job, right before the ACA was enacted. It's quite affordable, and while some day life circumstances will likely require me to change, I'm holding onto that fucker as long as I can. I got much luckier than my brother--he's six years younger me and is paying much more.

[Electromatic]

Health Insurance these days is not insurance, we're paying for buying into a plan in large groups.

Uh, that's exactly what all forms of insurance are, by definition. And the way most forms of insurance are able to work is by managing the risk pools properly, including charging more or denying coverage for the riskiest. That's entirely uncontroversial for most forms of insurance, but with health insurance it creates a terrible moral problem that we generally know as the practice of vetting for pre-existing conditions.

I'm coming to think that the best way to solve the problem is to have the government dedicate part of its budget particularly to serve those with pre-existing conditions. I don't think you need to do single payer to do that--you could simply raise taxes devoted to covering those people. I'd personally prefer a public option so that people could buy in and help reduce the amount of tax revenue that's needed. Once you take care of the riskiest of pools, I think you'd see the private insurance market right its ship.

I was mainly speaking of managed care. Single Payer would just put us all into one really large group instead of 5 or 6 plus the government. I can go to a car mechanic or a roofer without involving my insurance. You cannot do that in the US healthcare system. All prices are obscured and differed on purpose and it costs more because of it, but I like your ideas above. Either way the government is going to have to step in and control drug/medical pricing.


Health Insurance just doesn't provide all that much value for what we pay especially in comparison to the rest of the world.