Aetna CEO: Obamacare "cannot be repealed, period"

Nomad said:
If you can't pay your hospital and doctor bills, the taxpayers and the insured end up paying for it anyway in the form of higher taxes and medical costs.

How is that different than auto liability insurance?

If you get hurt in a car accident and have no insurance, it's just like getting sick. You go to the hospital then everyone else pays for it.

The point is, that even though auto insurance is required, it is still considered a free market industry.
Click to expand...

It is not a free market if you are compelled to purchase it. Period
 
Cypress said:
Of source he doesn't want single payer. He is in the business of making a profit off selling insurance. He's the CEO of a large private insurance company, with a vested interest in lobbying against single payer.

Other than that...

I assume that means you agree with the Aenta CEO that Obamacare is not going to be repealed, and fixing any shortcomings it has would be relatively easy.
Click to expand...

Bingo.
Minty is still a retard.
 
Nomad said:
If you can't pay your hospital and doctor bills, the taxpayers and the insured end up paying for it anyway in the form of higher taxes and medical costs.

How is that different than auto liability insurance?

If you get hurt in a car accident and have no insurance, it's just like getting sick. You go to the hospital then everyone else pays for it.

The point is, that even though auto insurance is required, it is still considered a free market industry.
Click to expand...

Oh and you didn't answer my question. Do you want to continue the auto insurance comparison?
 
Trump Diva said:
You can't revise history. Democrats made zero effort to garner bi-partisan support and now they are paying the price. Obama even proclaimed "I won". Well how'd that work out in the end?
Click to expand...
No...you cannot

Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican minority leader, had a strategy for his party: use his extensive knowledge of Senate procedure to slow things down, take advantage of the difficulties Democrats would have in governing and deny Democrats any Republican support on big legislation.
Click to expand...
 
tsuke said:
strange that during this time insurance companies are making record profits. its like obamacare was designed to funnel money from the government to them.

so wierd.
Click to expand...

It was you flailing retard.
Do you breathe unassisted?

The ACA was written by the Heritage Foundation and first made law by a GOP governor.

stupid fuck
 
Trump Diva said:
You can't revise history. Democrats made zero effort to garner bi-partisan support and now they are paying the price. Obama even proclaimed "I won". Well how'd that work out in the end?
Click to expand...

You are the only one trying to revise history, hunny chile.

Or are you not familiar with THE GANG OF SIX?

Then there's this ACCURATE ACCOUNT of the Obamacare creation process:

Did Obama Jam Through the Affordable Care Act Without Consulting Republicans or Working With Them to Find Bipartisan Cooperation?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/the-real-story-of-obamacares-birth/397742/

The Obama White House took a number of lessons from the Clinton experience with healthcare policy. First, do not rely on your own, detailed White House plan as the starting point for negotiations in Congress; let Congress work out the structure and details from your goals. Second, try from an early point to get buy-in from the major actors in the health world, including insurers, physicians, pharmaceutical companies, hospitals and other providers, to at least defuse or minimize their opposition. Third, recognize that the House and Senate are very different institutions, and let each work through its own ideas and plan before finding ways to merge the two into a single bill. Obama and his White House executed those lessons brilliantly.

There was a fourth lesson: Try in the Senate to find Republican support at an early stage, instead of waiting until the political dynamic shifts toward implacable opposition. The failure to engage John Chafee, Chuck Grassley, Orrin Hatch, and their colleagues at an early point in 1993, when they crafted their own plan and were willing to negotiate and cut a deal, proved deeply damaging, if not deadly in 1994. As the midterms loomed and Democrats were on the defensive, Chafee and his colleagues were told by then-Republican Leader Bob Dole that there would be no deal, period.

In the House, that lesson was not applicable this time; Eric Cantor and House Republicans had already made it crystal clear that they were not cooperating under any circumstances. There, Democrats debated the issue for several months, but mostly amongst themselves, before introducing a detailed bill that emerged from committees in July 2009 and passing it through the House later in the year with just one Republican vote.

But with Obama’s blessing, the Senate, through its Finance Committee, took a different tack, and became the fulcrum for a potential grand bargain on health reform. Chairman Max Baucus, in the spring of 2009, signaled his desire to find a bipartisan compromise, working especially closely with Grassley, his dear friend and Republican counterpart, who had been deeply involved in crafting the Republican alternative to Clintoncare. Baucus and Grassley convened an informal group of three Democrats and three Republicans on the committee, which became known as the “Gang of Six.” They covered the parties’ ideological bases; the other GOPers were conservative Mike Enzi of Wyoming and moderate Olympia Snowe of Maine, and the Democrats were liberal Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and moderate Kent Conrad of North Dakota.

Baucus very deliberately started the talks with a template that was the core of the 1993-4 Republican plan, built around an individual mandate and exchanges with private insurers—much to the chagrin of many Democrats and liberals who wanted, if not a single-payer system, at least one with a public insurance option. Through the summer, the Gang of Six engaged in detailed discussions and negotiations to turn a template into a plan. But as the summer wore along, it became clear that something had changed; both Grassley and Enzi began to signal that participation in the talks—and their demands for changes in the evolving plan—would not translate into a bipartisan agreement.

What became clear before September, when the talks fell apart, is that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell had warned both Grassley and Enzi that their futures in the Senate would be much dimmer if they moved toward a deal with the Democrats that would produce legislation to be signed by Barack Obama. They both listened to their leader. An early embrace by both of the framework turned to shrill anti-reform rhetoric by Grassley—talking, for example, about death panels that would kill grandma—and statements by Enzi that he was not going to sign on to a deal. The talks, nonetheless, continued into September, and the emerging plan was at least accepted in its first major test by the third Republican Gang member, Olympia Snowe (even if she later joined every one of her colleagues to vote against the plan on the floor of the Senate.)

Obama could have moved earlier to blow the whistle on the faux negotiations; he did not, as he held out hope that a plan that was fundamentally built on Republican ideas would still, in the end, garner at least some Republican support. He and Senate Democratic leaders held their fire even as Grassley and Enzi, in the negotiations, fought for some serious changes in a plan that neither would ever consider supporting in the end. If Obama had, as conventional wisdom holds, jammed health reform through at the earliest opportunity, there would have been votes in the Senate Finance Committee in June or July of 2009, as there were in the House. Instead, the votes came significantly later.

To be sure, the extended negotiations via the Gang of Six made a big difference in the ultimate success of the reform, but for other reasons. When Republicans like Hatch and Grassley began to write op-eds and trash the individual mandate, which they had earlier championed, as unconstitutional and abominable, it convinced conservative Democrats in the Senate that every honest effort to engage Republicans in the reform effort had been tried and cynically rebuffed. So when the crucial votes came in the Senate, in late December 2009, Harry Reid succeeded in the near-impossible feat of getting all 60 Democrats, from Socialist Bernie Sanders and liberal Barbara Boxer to conservatives Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, and Blanche Lincoln, to vote for cloture, to end the Republican filibuster, and to pass their version of the bill. All sixty were needed because every single Republican in the Senate voted against cloture and against the bill. Was this simply a matter of principle? The answer to that question was provided at a later point by Mitch McConnell, who made clear that the unified opposition was a ruthlessly pragmatic political tactic. He said, “It was absolutely critical that everybody be together because if the proponents of the bill were able to say it was bipartisan, it tended to convey to the public that this is O.K., they must have figured it out.”
Click to expand...

I realize that was a lot of reading and probably a bit on the complex side given your limited comprehension, or worse yet, your limited willingness to accept a reality that doesn't jibe with your BULLSHIT... but I hope you managed to get something out of it.

And don't worry. I've got it permenantly bookmarked so that next time you or one of your goofball partners in crime try to pass off your tired old LIE about the subject, I can just pull it right back up in an instant.

Have a nice day, little miss propaganda queen.
 
Althea said:
Employers have been 'ordered' to offer insurance to employees since the last century. ACA decoupled insurance from employment, and gave those in the individual market access to affordable plans.


Group plans are not subject to all aspects of ACA, so the EBI wasn't affected.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

HC employer benefits are a giant tax loophole for Dem crony corporations to avoid payroll taxes :palm:
 
Nomad said:
You are the only one trying to revise history, hunny chile.

Or are you not familiar with THE GANG OF SIX?

Then there's this ACCURATE ACCOUNT of the Obamacare creation process:



I realize that was a lot of reading and probably a bit on the complex side given your limited comprehension, or worse yet, your limited willingness to accept a reality that doesn't jibe with your BULLSHIT... but I hope you managed to get something out of it.

And don't worry. I've got it permenantly bookmarked so that next time you or one of your goofball partners in crime try to pass off your tired old LIE about the subject, I can just pull it right back up in an instant.

Have a nice day, little miss propaganda queen.
Click to expand...

:rofl2: :rofl2:
 
Trump Diva said:
:rofl2: :rofl2:
Click to expand...

I provided two legitimate sources.

You provided two dumbass smilies in response.

Guess it's obvious who's telling the truth and who's spouting bullshit here, isn't it?

You lose.

And like I said, next time you try to pass off that bullshit I'm going to cold slap your ass with the same reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top