Conservatives fret GOP is blowing Obamacare repeal

[Jazzhead]

Ah. You disagree with me therefor you're not conservative. That's typical.

Too typical, unfortunately - and lazy.   

[Sanguine]

Ah. You disagree with me therefor you're not conservative. That's typical.

What?  What are you replying to?

[Idaho_Cowboy]

Interesting.  @Jazzhead, this could be accurately described as the anti-Conservative point of view.  And/or anti-Constitutional.  Very European though.

On this issue it seems that way. I'm surprised, @Jazzhead normally has a pretty libertarian bent of mind.
Insurance is not human right and it's not the government's business. It's not an enumerated power. End of story. 

[Jazzhead]

On this issue it seems that way. I'm surprised, @Jazzhead normally has a pretty libertarian bent of mind.
Insurance is not human right and it's not the government's business. It's not an enumerated power. End of story.

As I speculated earlier,  the way that different conservatives approach the ACA is likely a function of whether they believe the access issue is important or, as you suggest, they believe that affordable health insurance is "not a human right",  so why should we care about folks who can't because of their health get or afford insurance?    Let the hospitals pay the cost for such unfortunates and pass the cost on to the rest of us who have insurance.     

But health insurance IS the government's business, whether you like it or not.   The reason most of us get health insurance through our employers is a direct result of government policy, and the tax incentives created by government policy.   It may well be better to deny employers a tax break for providing health insurance and let individuals deduct the cost of such insurance no matter where they get it from.   But how do you manage the transition? 

The ACA failed because it never seriously focused on the matter that forms part of its name  - the affordability of care.   The incentives created by ACA force employers and private citizens into gold-plated insurance policies that cover lots of stuff for free,  other stuff that many folks don't need, and prohibit plans from setting annual or lifetime limits on benefits.  Insurance meeting ACA standards is EXPENSIVE - with the result that the folks most affected by ACA are those who've either lost the policies they used to have or can maintain them only at the cost of higher deductibles and copays and skinnier provider networks.

So, yeah,  a key aspect of any ACA reform must be the provision of less comprehensive and less costly choices - such as catastrophic coverage,  or coverage with reasonable annual or lifetime limits like in the old days.   Folks have different appetites for risk, and different abilities to self-fund those risks.   While I agree conceptually that everyone should have insurance,  everyone should be able to get insurance that fits their situation.   

[Idaho_Cowboy]

As I speculated earlier,  the way that different conservatives approach the ACA is likely a function of whether they believe the access issue is important or, as you suggest, they believe that affordable health insurance is "not a human right",  so why should we care about folks who can't because of their health get or afford insurance?    Let the hospitals pay the cost for such unfortunates and pass the cost on to the rest of us who have insurance.     

But health insurance IS the government's business, whether you like it or not.   The reason most of us get health insurance through our employers is a direct result of government policy, and the tax incentives created by government policy.   It may well be better to deny employers a tax break for providing health insurance and let individuals deduct the cost of such insurance no matter where they get it from.   But how do you manage the transition? 

The ACA failed because it never seriously focused on the matter that forms part of its name  - the affordability of care.   The incentives created by ACA force employers and private citizens into gold-plated insurance policies that cover lots of stuff for free,  other stuff that many folks don't need, and prohibit plans from setting annual or lifetime limits on benefits.  Insurance meeting ACA standards is EXPENSIVE - with the result that the folks most affected by ACA are those who've either lost the policies they used to have or can maintain them only at the cost of higher deductibles and copays and skinnier provider networks.

So, yeah,  a key aspect of any ACA reform must be the provision of less comprehensive and less costly choices - such as catastrophic coverage,  or coverage with reasonable annual or lifetime limits like in the old days.   Folks have different appetites for risk, and different abilities to self-fund those risks.   While I agree conceptually that everyone should have insurance,  everyone should be able to get insurance that fits their situation.   

Sorry not in my constitution suggest you re-read and try again.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Too typical, unfortunately - and lazy.

Yep.

[INVAR]

centuries!!

Health insurance was born in the 1920's when hospitals began allowing people to pre-pay for their medical costs. The first employer based health insurance was in 1929 for Dallas schoolteachers.

No no no.

You got it all wrong.

According to our resident Know-It-All Liberal-Pretending-To-Be-Conservative-While-Spouting-Liberal-Talking-Points, health insurance in this country has been... well, let's allow him to remind us:

Government regulation of the insurance business goes back centuries; the states have traditionally prescribed rules for reserves and financial soundness.

Yes, CENTURIES - you know - because that happened at the same time as Lexington and Concord in Jazzhead's mind, back when all 57 states traditionally prescribed rules for health insurance reserve funds and financial soundness back at the time when Ben Franklin needed emergency care for electrocution after a kite accident and was turned away from the emergency room because of a pre-existing condition.

[INVAR]

But health insurance IS the government's business, whether you like it or not.   

And so is imposing homosexual marriage and guaranteeing abortion rights in your estimation.

Is there no Leftist Tenet of Big Government Faith you will not promote and defend here?

What a surprise (NOT) that you would be insisting the government has a right to impose a mandate upon us all, that we must buy a service and product we do not want, regulated to the point of total unaffordability, for service that sucks worse than it does in the slum-areas of Andhra Pradesh India.

[Jazzhead]

What a surprise (NOT) that you would be insisting the government has a right to impose a mandate upon us all, that we must buy a service and product we do not want, regulated to the point of total unaffordability, for service that sucks worse than it does in the slum-areas of Andhra Pradesh India.

No, I insist on no such thing.  The ACA is deeply flawed, but it can still be fixed so it's a better alternative than single payer. 

I really seem to get under your skin, don't I?   I'm lovin' it!   

[Sanguine]

No, I insist on no such thing.  The ACA is deeply flawed, but it can still be fixed so it's a better alternative than single payer. 

I really seem to get under your skin, don't I?   I'm lovin' it!

Is that your intent here?  To "get under the skin" of other posters? @Jazzhead

[Jazzhead]

Is that your intent here?  To "get under the skin" of other posters? @Jazzhead

Of course not, but Invar's got nothing but name-calling and insults.  He's flailing away like a fish on a dock, and I'd be lying if I didn't admit to enjoying how much I irritate him.

And by the way,  you never responded to my question -  how would you effectively address the access issue in a way you deem sufficiently "conservative"?     

[Sanguine]

Of course not, but Invar's got nothing but name-calling and insults.  He's flailing away like a fish on a dock, and I'd be lying if I didn't admit to enjoying how much I irritate him.

And by the way,  you never responded to my question -  how would you effectively address the access issue in a way you deem sufficiently "conservative"?     

We've already covered that - I didn't think you were asking for a recap.  I would do it lawfully: it's a states and individual issue, not a federal one. 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

We've already covered that - I didn't think you were asking for a recap.  I would do it lawfully: it's a states and individual issue, not a federal one.

Oh I agree with this 100%. Would you be willing to do the same for medicare and social security as well?


Politically, I feel this is impossible. The media will rip any proposal like this to pieces.

[INVAR]

No, I insist on no such thing.  The ACA is deeply flawed, but it can still be fixed so it's a better alternative than single payer.

There is no 'fixing' an unlawful, unConstitutional and tyrannical act, no matter the lengths you go to justify it.

It needs to be abolished wholesale and in total. 

All you have demonstrated is the desperate need to rationalize tyranny to assuage your liberal mindset.
 

I really seem to get under your skin, don't I?   I'm lovin' it!

On the contrary, I LOVE combating liberals and their insipid agendas and illogic.  I love showcasing to everyone else how vain, vapid and tyrannical their thinking and mindsets are.

You're target practice.

[Cyber Liberty]

We've already covered that - I didn't think you were asking for a recap.  I would do it lawfully: it's a states and individual issue, not a federal one.

@Jazzhead has made pretty clear, through his posting history, that he doesn't believe in "States' Rights," so your argument is moot.  That's why he missed it and demanded a recap.  The SCOTUS decided, so that's that.  They're perfect.

[Cyber Liberty]

There is no 'fixing' an unlawful, unConstitutional and tyrannical act, no matter the lengths you go to justify it.

It needs to be abolished wholesale and in total. 

All you have demonstrated is the desperate need to rationalize tyranny to assuage your liberal mindset.
 
On the contrary, I LOVE combating liberals and their insipid agendas and illogic.  I love showcasing to everyone else how vain, vapid and tyrannical their thinking and mindsets are.

You're target practice.

You're a pretty good marksman.  I'd spot for you any day of the week.

[Sanguine]

Oh I agree with this 100%. Would you be willing to do the same for medicare and social security as well?


Politically, I feel this is impossible. The media will rip any proposal like this to pieces.

Let's start with 0bamacare.  It's unsustainable and deeply unliked. 

Social "security" is a different animal in that people actually pay into it.  Do I think it needs to be dismantled?  Yes.  But, let's start with 0bamacare.

[INVAR]

Of course not, but Invar's got nothing but name-calling and insults.  He's flailing away like a fish on a dock, and I'd be lying if I didn't admit to enjoying how much I irritate him.

And again, you demonstrate in perfection exactly how Liberal Leftists like to argue when cornered on ideas contrary to common sense and Conservative principles.  You accuse us of 'name calling and insults'. 

Go cry to Mommy Mod if you must. 

And by the way,  you never responded to my question -  how would you effectively address the access issue in a way you deem sufficiently "conservative"?     

Get a job, pay for it yourself and make payment arrangements if you must, just like the rest of us producers have to do.

But that's not 'compassionate' in your worldview is it?

How about YOU PAY for all the folks who lament their coverage since you are so bothered by it - and leave your hands off our incomes and decision-making?

That would be the "Conservative" approach to the so-called problem.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Let's start with 0bamacare.  It's unsustainable and deeply unliked. 

Right but there are some people on it who didn't have "health care" before. Kicking them off would have terrible "optics" as they say. I'm wondering how you deal with that. Saying "touch cookies" isn't really realistic.

[Sanguine]

Right but there are some people on it who didn't have "health care" before. Kicking them off would have terrible "optics" as they say. I'm wondering how you deal with that. Saying "touch cookies" isn't really realistic.

OK, so if I were doing it, I would anticipate that and have some good options available that involved local or state governments or private options. (Working WITH state governments instead of against them or dictating to them could open up all sorts of future benefits and cooperation)  Things like high risk pools, health savings accounts with high deductibles and low cost insurance* plans, and possibly expanding Medicaid on a set temporary basis (It shouldn't be a life long bennie for healthy adults).  Seems to me the people in the toughest spots are working people in the middle income categories with families and/or pre-existing conditions.  They don't qualify for Medicaid and can't afford 0bamacare.  One of the above or a combination of those should provide affordable, adequate health coverage.  And, remember not all pre-existing conditions cause large medical costs. 

*Actual insurance as in providing for expensive, unexpected events, not some kind of pre-paid health plan. 

[driftdiver]

Right but there are some people on it who didn't have "health care" before. Kicking them off would have terrible "optics" as they say. I'm wondering how you deal with that. Saying "touch cookies" isn't really realistic.

@Sanguine
@Weird Tolkienish Figure

The economics of healthcare are terribly messed up.   Providers (aka doctors and hospitals) have greatly inflated their prices  to account for the atrocious rates offered by the insurance companies and government systems.   The providers routinely discount their list price by half or more if asked.   Except to cash payers.  Many providers can't treat cash payers because of liability.   They were sued because they "gave cash payers" better care.    So a person paying cash might pay $90 for an office visit while a insured patient pays $25 copay and the insurance company pays another $19 in 90 days. 

Hospital rates are outrageous but so are the regulations they have to comply with.  I know of one hospital that was spending 9% of its $1billion annual budget on making sure its billing was accurate.   Because if they're wrong then they would lose all payments.

Its a very complex problem and peoples lives are at stake.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

OK, so if I were doing it, I would anticipate that and have some good options available that involved local or state governments or private options. (Working WITH state governments instead of against them or dictating to them could open up all sorts of future benefits and cooperation)  Things like high risk pools, health savings accounts with high deductibles and low cost insurance* plans, and possibly expanding Medicaid on a set temporary basis (It shouldn't be a life long bennie for healthy adults).  Seems to me the people in the toughest spots are working people in the middle income categories with families and/or pre-existing conditions.  They don't qualify for Medicaid and can't afford 0bamacare.  One of the above or a combination of those should provide affordable, adequate health coverage.  And, remember not all pre-existing conditions cause large medical costs. 

*Actual insurance as in providing for expensive, unexpected events, not some kind of pre-paid health plan.

I'm liking the idea of vouchers more and more. And you can boot it to the states.

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine
@Weird Tolkienish Figure

The economics of healthcare are terribly messed up.   Providers (aka doctors and hospitals) have greatly inflated their prices  to account for the atrocious rates offered by the insurance companies and government systems.   The providers routinely discount their list price by half or more if asked.   Except to cash payers.  Many providers can't treat cash payers because of liability.   They were sued because they "gave cash payers" better care.    So a person paying cash might pay $90 for an office visit while a insured patient pays $25 copay and the insurance company pays another $19 in 90 days. 

Hospital rates are outrageous but so are the regulations they have to comply with.  I know of one hospital that was spending 9% of its $1billion annual budget on making sure its billing was accurate.   Because if they're wrong then they would lose all payments.

Its a very complex problem and peoples lives are at stake.

Good comments.  Part of my plan is predicated on allowing costs to come down.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Good comments.  Part of my plan is predicated on allowing costs to come down.

Agreed.

[Sanguine]

I'm liking the idea of vouchers more and more. And you can boot it to the states.

I'm not familiar with a voucher idea.  How would that work?