First Attempt a MAJOR legislative DEFEAT? Obamacare not repealed!

[Buckly J. Ewer]

The demokrauts still own Obama Care.....when it implodes, they can explain why people's medical card's they have spent thousands of dollars on....will not be accepted for non payment issues. At the current rate.....in about 1 year, Obama Care will be insolvent. About the time of the med terms. Trump is correct...its time to move.org, Obama Care is a problem that will soon solve itself, just leave it alone. And perhaps when it goes belly up....both sides of the isle can began work on real reform.

Obamacare is not imploding...
Republicans are crying wolf...
When it doesn't "go up in flames" as promised, defeating it will be much much harder next time around.
As of right now the AHA has never been more popular at 83%...

[Norah]

Correction it was Johnson not Nixon. You weren't alive when the constitution was written either so how do you know so much about that?

Sent from Lenovo K6 Note

Can I ask you why you seem so hostile towards the constitution?

[Althea]

Correction it was Johnson not Nixon. You weren't alive when the constitution was written either so how do you know so much about that?

Sent from Lenovo K6 Note

Yea....that's a good question.

And I cut you slack earlier on the Nixon thing. Low hanging fruit, as it were.

[cancel2 2022]

Can I ask you why you seem so hostile towards the constitution?

I am hostile to the way it is often used to resist change for the better. The Constitution is subject to interpretation and keeps many lawyers in luxury arguing interminably about minutiae. Have you discovered yet why Johnson was able to get both Medicare and Medicaid through Congress?

Sent from Lenovo K6 Note

[Bill]

I am hostile to the way it is often used to resist change for the better. The Constitution is subject to interpretation and keeps many lawyers in luxury arguing interminably about minutiae. Have you discovered yet why Johnson was able to get both Medicare and Medicaid through Congress?

Sent from Lenovo K6 Note

Better?? Better for who??

[cancel2 2022]

Better?? Better for who??

Do oppose me just for the hell of it? I am thinking about single payer and gun control specifically.

Sent from Lenovo K6 Note

[Timshel]

It's my healthcare plan I unveiled on dcj during the summer of '15. I conceived it while mowing by lawn under the influence of 2 beers. I refined after I finished cutting the grass and had downed two more beers.
Basically it's medical cost sharing. The first yr an estimate is made for the total cost spent on medical care and that amt. is collected by the govt. from every person's paycheck and welfare check (which is many people's paycheck). That's the only aspect in which the govt. is involved . The funds are then turned over to an independent escrow account administered by private industry which is subject to audit by two separate independent public accounting firms who bid for the job.
There is an option to pay into a Health Savings Acct. rather than have it collected by the federal govt. All funds from the HSA must be used before using those from the escrow acct. If those funds are not used they can be handed down to heirs for their use. It can also be used for funeral expenses or willed to a charitable cause. This should satisfy and reward those who exhibit the personal responsibility of eating healthy, do regular exercise and otherwise live a healthy lifestyle.
Healthcare providers would be required to post their fees and give alternatives to treatment so consumers would have an idea as to what their treatment would cost.
The key is, is that everybody pays into something. There is no government fraud, waste and abuse and no insurance middleman profiting . There's much more to it so if you have any questions please ask. I'll be happy to answer. Most of the details I've ironed out already but it's too extensive to post at the moment.
Thank you and have a pleasant afternoon or evening.

Is this a joke or do you intend it to be taken seriously? You are short on details.

I think, just about everybody (save for those with chronic/expensive conditions) would take the HSA. What happens when they run out of money and there is none left in the government's pot because only the really bad risks are paying into that?

What does this "private Industry" maintaining the "escrow account" get out of it?

How are you going to control doctors/patients overcharging/overusing?

[Darth Omar]

Is this a joke or do you intend it to be taken seriously? You are short on details.

I think, just about everybody (save for those with chronic/expensive conditions) would take the HSA. What happens when they run out of money and there is none left in the government's pot because only the really bad risks are paying into that?

What does this "private Industry" maintaining the "escrow account" get out of it?

How are you going to control doctors/patients overcharging/overusing?

Doctors can 'charge' whatever they want but insurance companies decide how much they get paid. So it's a decidedly an un-free market from their perspective. The exceptions being high-end plastic surgeons whose clientele includes the uber wealthy. Possibly some others I can't think of.

But the cost-side of the equation needs to be approached. I think too much emphasis has been put on the insurance side of it: the cost of health insurance is only a reflection of the cost of healthcare. It's absolutely insane, how expensive even relatively simple procedures have become. Patients 'rent' an operating room by the minute---$20/minute last I heard.

Pharmaceuticals are totally out of hand.

Personally, I think they should loosen up some of the FDA restrictions for new drugs. It has risks, but it should at least be on the table for debate.

[Althea]

Is this a joke or do you intend it to be taken seriously? You are short on details.

I think, just about everybody (save for those with chronic/expensive conditions) would take the HSA. What happens when they run out of money and there is none left in the government's pot because only the really bad risks are paying into that?

What does this "private Industry" maintaining the "escrow account" get out of it?

How are you going to control doctors/patients overcharging/overusing?

Yes. That was one of the glaring flaws in Moosecare. He says that when (not if) HSA money dries up, the govt will step in.

Well hell....they'd better be prepared to fund all healthcare then. In essence, his HSA plan is nothing but self funding. That only works when you start with tens of thousands of dollars.

[Althea]

Doctors can 'charge' whatever they want but insurance companies decide how much they get paid. So it's a decidedly an un-free market from their perspective. The exceptions being high-end plastic surgeons whose clientele includes the uber wealthy. Possibly some others I can't think of.

But the cost-side of the equation needs to be approached. I think too much emphasis has been put on the insurance side of it: the cost of health insurance is only a reflection of the cost of healthcare. It's absolutely insane, how expensive even relatively simple procedures have become. Patients 'rent' an operating room by the minute---$20/minute last I heard.

Pharmaceuticals are totally out of hand.

Personally, I think they should loosen up some of the FDA restrictions for new drugs. It has risks, but it should at least be on the table for debate.

Yes. Drugs drive the costs up more than anything else. Millions of people have never been in a surgical suite, but have hundreds of dollars of meds forced on them each month by complicit, scamming doctors. The problem, as it applies to ACA, is that the crafters of the law (insurance companies) knew that the first 3 to 5 years of the law would yield astronomical claims. That's not rocket science. In exchange for new mandatory minimum coverage, and pre existing conditions, the Feds guaranteed billions in cost sharing, and risk corridor programs.

Thus far, due to cuts by House Republicans, the insurers are owed billions in unpaid guarantees. This was by design in the House. They will continue to pick away at whatever aspects of the law they can, and then claim it was a failure.

The goal was never to create affordable healthcare. It was to do away with the taxes associated with ACA, and move on the more extensive tax cuts. Also...once you remove the ACA taxes, I believe the other 'bucket' issues would be easier to pass via budget reconciliation.

[Darth Omar]

Yes. Drugs drive the costs up more than anything else. Millions of people have never been in a surgical suite, but have hundreds of dollars of meds forced on them each month by complicit, scamming doctors. The problem, as it applies to ACA, is that the crafters of the law (insurance companies) knew that the first 3 to 5 years of the law would yield astronomical claims. That's not rocket science. In exchange for new mandatory minimum coverage, and pre existing conditions, the Feds guaranteed billions in cost sharing, and risk corridor programs.

Thus far, due to cuts by House Republicans, the insurers are owed billions in unpaid guarantees. This was by design in the House. They will continue to pick away at whatever aspects of the law they can, and then claim it was a failure.

The goal was never to create affordable healthcare. It was to do away with the taxes associated with ACA, and move on the more extensive tax cuts. Also...once you remove the ACA taxes, I believe the other 'bucket' issues would be easier to pass via budget reconciliation.

The whole concept behind the ACA was fundamentally flawed and no amount of smoke and mirrors cost shuffling was going to fix it. It was going to wither on the vine with or without republicans help.

I'm wary of comprehensive government 'fixing' of such complex problems as healthcare. The mistake was in not doing it incrementally. For example, attack the pharmaceutical aspect. Get that right, then move on to something else.

You might even get some consensus if you do that approach.

[Althea]

The whole concept behind the ACA was fundamentally flawed and no amount of smoke and mirrors cost shuffling was going to fix it. It was going to wither on the vine with or without republicans help.

I'm wary of comprehensive government 'fixing' of such complex problems as healthcare. The mistake was in not doing it incrementally. For example, attack the pharmaceutical aspect. Get that right, then move on to something else.

You might even get some consensus if you do that approach.

Even Obama admitted that it wasn't perfect when it passed. He tried to get insurers/Big Pharma to go willingly, and create a system that doesn't leave them out in the cold.

But...creating huge demand for costly procedures was going to be expensive. That expense was worked into the law, with Fed guarantees for the first 3 years of the law.

Republicans removed funding for those guarantees, and insurers are now owed billions.

The concept was NOT flawed. The concept was aimed at prevention, and improving overall health in the nation. That eventually brings down the cost of healthcare.

It doesn't happen overnight. It also doesn't happen when there's no desire by Congress to achieve it...opting for politicizing the issue while millions still struggle.

[PostmodernProphet]

it took Obama two years to get Obama care passed......why decide Trump has failed after sixty days?......

[Darth Omar]

Even Obama admitted that it wasn't perfect when it passed. He tried to get insurers/Big Pharma to go willingly, and create a system that doesn't leave them out in the cold.

But...creating huge demand for costly procedures was going to be expensive. That expense was worked into the law, with Fed guarantees for the first 3 years of the law.

Republicans removed funding for those guarantees, and insurers are now owed billions.

The concept was NOT flawed. The concept was aimed at prevention, and improving overall health in the nation. That eventually brings down the cost of healthcare.

It doesn't happen overnight. It also doesn't happen when there's no desire by Congress to achieve it...opting for politicizing the issue while millions still struggle.

Too many different factions want too many different things to pass a comprehensive healthcare act: republicans can't even reach a consensus on it. And with the radical wing of the democrat party they'd do no better.

Consequently, you end up with a dysfunctional hodgepodge monstrosity no matter who passes it.

Tackle one aspect at a time or settle for something that doesn't work.

[Althea]

Too many different factions want too many different things to pass a comprehensive healthcare act: republicans can't even reach a consensus on it. And with the radical wing of the democrat party they'd do no better.

Consequently, you end up with a dysfunctional hodgepodge monstrosity no matter who passes it.

Tackle one aspect at a time or settle for something that doesn't work.

Agree. There is no reason that the House could not have implemented their minor tweaks that trump referenced on the campaign trail. (all nonsense, of course). Allow sales across state lines. Allow low cost policies that cover nothing.
Those would have proven useless. If the goal was to provide healthcare, and eventually fix the problems with ACA (it wasn't), the House could have put the funding back into place that is owed to the insurers. That bolsters the exchanges immediately.

From there, work on the issues that are costly....mainly meds.

But the goal had nothing to do with improving the law. It was about tax cuts, and politicizing yet another Obama accomplishment.