Is GOP Health Care Bill a Disaster? No (This explains it)

[DB]

You really think so?

Which Dems would vote for it? Cuz there certainly aren't enough GOP votes for it.

There was a time when presidents used their bully pulpit to rally Americans to move congress to do things. To make the case and pressure congress to act favorably. It was called leadership. Is leadership dead?

[EC]

Bollocks.

"We can't do it because we don't have the House" - so the voters give them the House.
"We can't do it because we don't have the Senate" - so the voters give them the Senate.
"We can't do it because we don't have the Presidency." - so the voters give them the Presidency.
"We can't do it because ... " - Enough is Effing enough. Do it.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The bill is pretty weak sauce for the "party of limited government". That being said, it does get rid of the mandate.


Trump is pretty determined to get this passed so guess what? It will pass.

[Jazzhead]

Then you are in favor of mandates.

No,  I can accept the AHCA's abolition of the mandates in the Tax Code.    As I noted above,  these have become a compliance burden and a jobs killer.   

But that doesn't mean the problem of free riders doesn't need to be addressed.  It appears you view free riders as virtuous,  but when they need health care they've declined to plan for,  it's the rest of us who have to pay more to cover the cost of their care.   

Under the AHCA's approach,  free riders are punished not by the IRS but by the market -  insurers can require them to pay through the nose if they seek to avoid getting insurance until they get sick.  And the AHCA holds the promise of expanding the range of choices in the market.   

[Hoodat]

Then you are in favor of mandates.

No,  I can accept the AHCA's abolition of the mandates in the Tax Code.

Wait, didn't you just say this:

   I like the way the AHCA handles this.   An insurance company cannot deny coverage for a preexisting condition,  but can punish free riders with higher rates. 

That's a mandate.  And not only do you support this mandate, you also admit that the new bill supports it, contrary to your false claims otherwise.

[Jazzhead]

No,  I can accept the AHCA's abolition of the mandates in the Tax Code.


Wait, didn't you just say this:
That's a mandate.  And not only do you support this mandate, you also admit that the new bill supports it, contrary to your false claims otherwise.

How is that a mandate?   It's a penalty exacted by the insurance company in reaction to the risk it is forced to assume with a free rider unwilling to purchase insurance except and until he needs it.   Do you consider a tobacco surcharge to be a "mandate", or a reaction to real risk? 

 Free riders are a cancer, IMO.   Why do you disagree?   I thought conservatives objected to paying the costs for others.   Why should I as a non-smoker pay an inflated price for insurance to cover the idiots who insist on poisoning their bodies?   Why should I as a responsible adult pay an inflated price for insurance because of leeches that won't join the risk pool until they get sick?       

[Hoodat]

How is that a mandate?

Seriously?  Government MANDATES (at the point of a gun) that insurance companies MUST accept people with pre-existing conditions as policy holders?  And you ask how is that a mandate?

[Jazzhead]

Seriously?  Government MANDATES (at the point of a gun) that insurance companies MUST accept people with pre-existing conditions as policy holders?  And you ask how is that a mandate?

So what should be done with such folks? Let them die?   

There but for the grace of God go you and I, hoodat.       

[Hoodat]

So what should be done with such folks? Let them die?   

LMAO !!!!

Democrat talking points, right here on TBR.

There but for the grace of God go you and I, hoodat.       

And there goes something that I as an individual will do something to help.  But I will not use the guns of government to force you to do likewise.

So going forward, how about a little honesty, eh?  It does not serve you well to claim the new bill gets rid of mandates while at the same time championing the mandates it has.

[Jazzhead]

Spare me the insults, hoodat.   What would you do about folks with pre-existing conditions who lose their jobs through no fault of their own?   Someday you may find yourself in that situation - it's not a matter of a lack of virtue.   There but for the grace of God . . . and the whims of voluntary charity, I assume.   

Be honest, hoodat - you WOULD just let them die.   To me - as a Christian, even a disaffected one - that 's unacceptable.   

[Bigun]

Bollocks.

"We can't do it because we don't have the House" - so the voters give them the House.
"We can't do it because we don't have the Senate" - so the voters give them the Senate.
"We can't do it because we don't have the Presidency." - so the voters give them the Presidency.
"We can't do it because ... " - Enough is Effing enough. Do it.

They can't!  And it has nothing to do with not having the votes and everything to do with their K Street masters not wanting it done!

[Sanguine]

Bollocks.

"We can't do it because we don't have the House" - so the voters give them the House.
"We can't do it because we don't have the Senate" - so the voters give them the Senate.
"We can't do it because we don't have the Presidency." - so the voters give them the Presidency.
"We can't do it because ... " - Enough is Effing enough. Do it.

Deserves a re-quote.

[Bigun]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbHTJSu_2Lk

[Hoodat]

Spare me the insults, hoodat.   What would you do about folks with pre-existing conditions who lose their jobs through no fault of their own?

As the Federal Government?  Nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  It is not the function of the Federal Government, nor is it moral to steal from others at the point of a gun to assuage your own feelings.

Someday you may find yourself in that situation - it's not a matter of a lack of virtue.

I have found myself in that situation.  And at no point did I expect the federal government to do a damn thing about it.  I went out and got another job.  I changed my lifestyle to minimize the effects of the pre-existing condition.   I paid for health care out of pocket.  And I am still alive.

There but for the grace of God . . . and the whims of voluntary charity, I assume.

As opposed to involuntary 'charity'?

Be honest, hoodat - you WOULD just let them die.

False dilemma.  No one is dying.  We're talking about insurance here.  Try to stay on topic, Mrs. Pelosi.

To me - as a Christian, even a disaffected one - that 's unacceptable.

Christianity is about what we do as individuals, not what we empower the Roman government to do by force.  As a Christian, perhaps you should actually listen to what Jesus said.

Matthew 25:14-30


And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth

[andy58-in-nh]

So what should be done with such folks? Let them die?   

There but for the grace of God go you and I, hoodat.       

That is a form of emotional blackmail long favored by Progressives.

Insurance is not the same as access. Health care services are available for people who need it at any public hospital or emergency room. It's not the greatest care on the planet, but it is far better than that available in most other countries.

People are not dying on the streets in the US because they cannot get treatment, nor would they if we returned to the status quo ante. Significant sums of money are donated annually to provide care for the indigent, and far more would be, were it not for the crowding out effect of government, largely through Medicaid.

Our health care challenges can all be traced to government and the historical linkage of insurance to employment. No other successful marketplace functions in this manner, and it has resulted over time in artificial, even perverse incentives and the misallocation of scarce resources. 

That said, any change to a truly market-based system will require a gradual evolution, the planning for which ought to have been done during the past seven or eight years by Republicans in Congress, but of course, was not, largely because so many of them are risk-averse careerists. Fortunately, practical frameworks for such an evolution are available through conservative policy organizations such as the Heritage Foundation. All they have to do is ask.

[Jazzhead]

Our health care challenges can all be traced to government and the historical linkage of insurance to employment. No other successful marketplace functions in this manner, and it has resulted over time in artificial, even perverse incentives and the misallocation of scarce resources. 

I agree.   

[SirLinksALot]

RE:   a full repeal of Obamacare must get through the Senate, which means it must get 60 votes. There are only 52 Republican senators. Therefore, the first bill that has been unveiled is intended to be passed under the reconciliation process, which requires only a bare majority.

So, the strategy is to dismantle Obamacare piecemeal if I read this article right. Which relies on one unpredictable factor --- THAT THE GOP CONTINUES TO KEEP BOTH HOUSES. If they should lose one or both houses, this strategy fails.

If memory serves me right, the Democrats did not have 60 votes in the Senate in 2011 when Obamacare passed ( they just lost an epic election over Obamacare ). They passed the bill through trickery.

[endicom]

Our health care challenges can all be traced to government and the historical linkage of insurance to employment. No other successful marketplace functions in this manner, and it has resulted over time in artificial, even perverse incentives and the misallocation of scarce resources. 

The insurance-employment link is said to be rooted in the WWII wage freeze. Companies couldn't compete for talent with salary so they went for benefits.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

How much "phasing in" did the Democrats do with Obamacare?

But the truth is, Trump campaigned on what they're doing and what they are doing is the big government solution he promised. Preexisting conditions have to be covered and the "government is going to pay for it" and that's what we're getting... Those two things remove any market solution.

Trump said what he wanted to do and those who voted for him are getting what they voted for.

Lot's of it, but it was all hardwired into the original bill. They kicked the bad stuff down the road so they could get re-elected before the worst of it took effect. Things like the penalty er um I mean tax still hadn't reached the final phase; if I'm not mistaken.

I'm a little worried by the "trust us" attitude politicians expect from us on what the next phases are. If they think they can hold this over the heads of the conservative base to keep support up for the midterms it may backfire.  The goal should be to undo as much damage as possible as quickly as possible. Toying restoring the freedom of the people for political gain is just wrong.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

RE:   a full repeal of Obamacare must get through the Senate, which means it must get 60 votes. There are only 52 Republican senators. Therefore, the first bill that has been unveiled is intended to be passed under the reconciliation process, which requires only a bare majority.

So, the strategy is to dismantle Obamacare piecemeal if I read this article right. Which relies on one unpredictable factor --- THAT THE GOP CONTINUES TO KEEP BOTH HOUSES. If they should lose one or both houses, this strategy fails.

If memory serves me right, the Democrats did not have 60 votes in the Senate in 2011 when Obamacare passed ( they just lost an epic election over Obamacare ). They passed the bill through trickery.

Republicans should use the nuclear option and be done with it.

[INVAR]

That is a form of emotional blackmail long favored by Progressives.

That ought to tell you who and what Jazzy actually is and what he favors.

It isn't Conservatism in any stripe or fashion.

Just the opposite.

But he continues to pretend he's a Conservative so as to beguile as many as possible into accepting Liberal Statist ideology 'as' Conservatism.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

So what should be done with such folks? Let them die?   

There but for the grace of God go you and I, hoodat.       

Wait a minute me bucko. I thought it was wrong to legislate Christian morals and standards. Just like Abortion. Which is it?

[corbe]

You really think so?

Which Dems would vote for it? Cuz there certainly aren't enough GOP votes for it.

   No DEM will ever vote for this, I should have been clearer @Suppressed, I meant through Reconciliation where only 51 votes is required.  If Repeal could be handled through Reconciliation, not sure.

[INVAR]

Wait a minute me bucko. I thought it was wrong to legislate Christian morals and standards. Just like Abortion. Which is it?

Ooooooo..... that left a mark to showcase Jazzy's hypocrisy now didn't it?

[INVAR]

   No DEM will ever vote for this, I should have been clearer @Suppressed, I meant through Reconciliation where only 51 votes is required.  If Repeal could be handled through Reconciliation, not sure.

The answer is clear; DEFUND it.  Instruct the Alphabets and the Feds not to enforce any provisions in the Act (as Obama did and the GOP rubber-stamped approval of said tactic).

ObamaCare will wither and die on the vine and the Free Market will mobilize to take advantage of the breath of liberty and a whiff of Capitalism.