Why Trump Should NOT Repeal or Replace ObamaCare (Just Let It Die)

[Smokin Joe]

Here is the thing what happens if Obamacare crashes and burn say in 2021 and the Democrats is back in power?

They're Democrats. They'll double down.

[Jazzhead]

Here is the thing what happens if Obamacare crashes and burn say in 2021 and the Democrats is back in power?

Bingo.  And the Dems know this quite well - voters have short memories.   While the ACA was created on the Dems' watch, its demise on the Republicans' watch is what people will be weighing when they cast votes in 2018 and 2020.

Those who want the ACA killed and the ground salted forget that millions of Americans have benefited from it.   Yes, it's true -  and the question of what to do with it is complicated,  and if the GOP can't unite behind a fix or a replacement,  they will own the consequences of its demise. 

The Dems won't lift a finger to help,  just as we did nothing to influence the direction of the original legislation.   The ACA represented a compromise between the far lefties who preferred single payer, and the blue-dog Dems who wanted to solve the access issue without uprooting the current employer-based system and while preserving the role of private insurance companies.   

There IS a way to fix the ACA without harming most of those who've been helped by it,  and ensuring that it can provide affordable insurance for millions more.   The bones of the ACA are sound - marketplaces for "guaranteed issue" individual insurance exist in all 50 states.   But the choices are dwindling, and the cost of policies are soaring,  because of leftist notions of paternalism and redistribution that keep healthy, younger lives out of the individual insurance market.   These flaws can be fixed, and fixed rather quickly and simply. 

But the GOP can't be mesmerized by the salt-the-ground radicals for whom empathy for the less fortunate clashes with their severe notions of "Christian" virtue and "fascist mandates".   "Christian" posters here have even made the ridiculous claim that the ACA has only helped gays and Muslims.  Too much of the opposition to the ACA has been marked by this sort of blinkered idiocy. 

In fact,  the ACA has most helped the working poor and white males in their 50s.   Yeah,  it's hurt some folks as well - especially the self-employed - but that's why the ACA needs to be fixed - not abolished in a frenzy to return to the status quo ante where Americans' access to health care was at the mercy of the benevolence of their employers.   

 

[Smokin Joe]

Bingo.  And the Dems know this quite well - voters have short memories.   While the ACA was created on the Dems' watch, its demise on the Republicans' watch is what people will be weighing when they cast votes in 2018 and 2020.

Those who want the ACA killed and the ground salted forget that millions of Americans have benefited from it.   Yes, it's true -  and the question of what to do with it is complicated,  and if the GOP can't unite behind a fix or a replacement,  they will own the consequences of its demise. 

The Dems won't lift a finger to help,  just as we did nothing to influence the direction of the original legislation.   The ACA represented a compromise between the far lefties who preferred single payer, and the blue-dog Dems who wanted to solve the access issue without uprooting the current employer-based system and while preserving the role of private insurance companies.   

There IS a way to fix the ACA without harming most of those who've been helped by it,  and ensuring that it can provide affordable insurance for millions more.   The bones of the ACA are sound - marketplaces for "guaranteed issue" individual insurance exist in all 50 states.   But the choices are dwindling, and the cost of policies are soaring,  because of leftist notions of paternalism and redistribution that keep healthy, younger lives out of the individual insurance market.   These flaws can be fixed, and fixed rather quickly and simply. 

But the GOP can't be mesmerized by the salt-the-ground radicals for whom empathy for the less fortunate clashes with their severe notions of "Christian" virtue and "fascist mandates".   "Christian" posters here have even made the ridiculous claim that the ACA has only helped gays and Muslims.  Too much of the opposition to the ACA has been marked by this sort of blinkered idiocy. 

In fact,  the ACA has most helped the working poor and white males in their 50s.   Yeah,  it's hurt some folks as well - especially the self-employed - but that's why the ACA needs to be fixed - not abolished in a frenzy to return to the status quo ante where Americans' access to health care was at the mercy of the benevolence of their employers.   

I would love to see how many Americans have lost their coverage, are paying more for less, no longer have the doctor they were told they could keep, etc.

Frankly, I think that overwhelms the number of people who benefited, and those could have been taken care of at a lower cost than that dumped on everyone else.

With the departure of providers from the State here, that leaves one provider (BCBS) which used to just be prohibitively expensive (24K/year for a family of 4), and now is cheaper but covers even less.

And yes, the ACA caused my provider to depart the marketplace (they no longer write health insurance policies) after I had held a policy with them for over 20  years. Now, I have no insurance, and the ACA will fine me for that. Burn it, scatter the ashes, plow them in and salt the earth.

[Jazzhead]

I would love to see how many Americans have lost their coverage, are paying more for less, no longer have the doctor they were told they could keep, etc.

Frankly, I think that overwhelms the number of people who benefited, and those could have been taken care of at a lower cost than that dumped on everyone else.

With the departure of providers from the State here, that leaves one provider (BCBS) which used to just be prohibitively expensive (24K/year for a family of 4), and now is cheaper but covers even less.

And yes, the ACA caused my provider to depart the marketplace (they no longer write health insurance policies) after I had held a policy with them for over 20  years. Now, I have no insurance, and the ACA will fine me for that. Burn it, scatter the ashes, plow them in and salt the earth.

You know it's not responsible to blow something up when it's possible to fix it.   If that's the GOP's attitude, then it will be the recipient of the electoral consequences.   

The Dems are smiling and treating the ACA now as the GOP's tar baby.   I say it represents an opportunity to show our policy chops - the fixes I would propose are both simple and consistent with conservative principles.  But if the salt-the-ground radicals like you want your pyrrhic victory,  don't say I didn't warn you.   

[TomSea]

Bingo.  And the Dems know this quite well - voters have short memories.   While the ACA was created on the Dems' watch, its demise on the Republicans' watch is what people will be weighing when they cast votes in 2018 and 2020.

Those who want the ACA killed and the ground salted forget that millions of Americans have benefited from it.   Yes, it's true -  and the question of what to do with it is complicated,  and if the GOP can't unite behind a fix or a replacement,  they will own the consequences of its demise. 

The Dems won't lift a finger to help,  just as we did nothing to influence the direction of the original legislation.   The ACA represented a compromise between the far lefties who preferred single payer, and the blue-dog Dems who wanted to solve the access issue without uprooting the current employer-based system and while preserving the role of private insurance companies.   

There IS a way to fix the ACA without harming most of those who've been helped by it,  and ensuring that it can provide affordable insurance for millions more.   The bones of the ACA are sound - marketplaces for "guaranteed issue" individual insurance exist in all 50 states.   But the choices are dwindling, and the cost of policies are soaring,  because of leftist notions of paternalism and redistribution that keep healthy, younger lives out of the individual insurance market.   These flaws can be fixed, and fixed rather quickly and simply. 

But the GOP can't be mesmerized by the salt-the-ground radicals for whom empathy for the less fortunate clashes with their severe notions of "Christian" virtue and "fascist mandates".   "Christian" posters here have even made the ridiculous claim that the ACA has only helped gays and Muslims.  Too much of the opposition to the ACA has been marked by this sort of blinkered idiocy. 

In fact,  the ACA has most helped the working poor and white males in their 50s.   Yeah,  it's hurt some folks as well - especially the self-employed - but that's why the ACA needs to be fixed - not abolished in a frenzy to return to the status quo ante where Americans' access to health care was at the mercy of the benevolence of their employers.   

That's mostly true, however, if you are pointing at other conservatives, dismembering fetuses from limb to limb as you promote is not a conservative value either, if one is being so critical of "Christians" and their values.

[Jazzhead]

That's mostly true, however, if you are pointing at other conservatives, dismembering fetuses from limb to limb as you promote is not a conservative value either, if one is being so critical of "Christians" and their values.

When have I ever defended or promoted the practice of abortion,  TomSea?   I have consistently denounced it as a moral wrong.

My position on the matter is that it is fruitless and self-defeating to seek to ban abortion in light of the choice right enjoyed by every American woman for over 40 years.  That genie, for better or worse, is out of the bottle.   Instead,  pro-lifers should focus their efforts on persuasion, not coercion.  That is the proven way to save lives.   

[skeeter]

Yeah,  it's hurt some folks as well - especially the self-employed - but that's why the ACA needs to be fixed - not abolished in a frenzy to return to the status quo ante where Americans' access to health care was at the mercy of the benevolence of their employers.   

Thanks for acknowledging this much, at least. My wife and I, in our 50s, with one kid still living at home, are starting our second year health insurance free thanks to this wonderful act of government.

So you'll forgive give me if I read your words of praise for the ACA with just a bit of irony.

[TomSea]

Thanks for acknowledging this much, at least. My wife and I, in our 50s, with one kid still living at home, are starting our second year health insurance free thanks to this wonderful act of government.

So you'll forgive give me if I read your words of praise for the ACA with just a bit of irony.

As a sort of welfare, virtually the only people it helped were those without insurance but at the same time, the percentages of those not covered by insurance in the country has not significantly changed.

[skeeter]

As a sort of welfare, virtually the only people it helped were those without insurance but at the same time, the percentages of those not covered by insurance in the country has not significantly changed.

The ACA simply shifted a good chunk of private wealth from self-sufficient taxpayers to government's client groups.

[Jazzhead]

The ACA simply shifted a good chunk of private wealth from self-sufficient taxpayers to government's client groups.

What are you talking about?   The ACA was designed to provide options for the working poor.   It bothers me when I read posts (I'm not talking about your posts specifically, skeeter) from the "Christians" here that suggest the working poor lack virtue and the community has no moral obligation to provide them a way to obtain affordable health coverage.   

[libertybele]

What are you talking about?   The ACA was designed to provide options for the working poor.   It bothers me when I read posts (I'm not talking about your posts specifically, skeeter) from the "Christians" here that suggest the working poor lack virtue and the community has no moral obligation to provide them a way to obtain affordable health coverage.   

Moral obligation??  I disagree.  I am NOT obligated, nor is it my responsibility to support someone else's health care coverage.  Secondly the problem with the ACA is that in many cases it is not affordable and many have lost health care benefits not to mention their jobs or reduction in hours.  So ... by your logic, ACA forces employers to reduce their work force, making it more difficult for those with reduced hours to afford healthcare, but because my hubby and I have health care through our employer (which we pay for), I am now obligated to help those with reduced hours because of ACA pay for it??  B.S.

For one, we need to stop providing medical benefits to ILLEGALS; that will greatly reduce the cost of health insurance.  Secondly, we need to provide tax incentives to those employers who provide health insurance as an option to their employees, not penalize them for not providing health insurance.  Open up the marketplace instead of closing it up like the ACA has done. 

Also, I've never seen the logic in penalizing the people who can't afford health insurance at tax time ... let's take money away from them because they don't have money for health insurance?? Where's the morality in that one?

The ACA was nothing more than a tax and had very little to do with making health insurance affordable!  Get real.

[skeeter]

What are you talking about?   The ACA was designed to provide options for the working poor.   It bothers me when I read posts (I'm not talking about your posts specifically, skeeter) from the "Christians" here that suggest the working poor lack virtue and the community has no moral obligation to provide them a way to obtain affordable health coverage.   

Leaving aside your jab at "christians" and the other non-sequitur, are you really suggesting that the poor in America had no health care options or didn't have access to health care services prior to ACA?

Because if they did (and you know they did) then the insurance argument is simply a red herring.

[Jazzhead]

Leaving aside your jab at "christians" and the other non-sequitur, are you really suggesting that the poor in America had no health care options or didn't have access to health care services prior to ACA?

The non-working poor largely qualified for Medicaid.  The problem addressed by the ACA was health coverage for the working poor -  those who work for companies too small to offer group health coverage, or those working part-time at multiple jobs who don't qualify for employer-sponsored group health coverage.  Remember, the root of the dilemma addressed by the ACA is the unique way our health insurance system is mostly organized - it is employer-based.   If you lose you job,  if you work for the wrong employer, or you're forced to work multiple jobs - you're screwed. 

Such working poor do not lack virtue!

[skeeter]

The non-working poor largely qualified for Medicaid.  The problem addressed by the ACA was health coverage for the working poor -  those who work for companies too small to offer group health coverage, or those working part-time at multiple jobs who don't qualify for employer-sponsored group health coverage.  Remember, the root of the dilemma addressed by the ACA is the unique way our health insurance system is mostly organized - it is employer-based.   If you lose you job,  if you work for the wrong employer, or you're forced to work multiple jobs - you're screwed. 

Such working poor do not lack virtue!

Your comment about the poor not lacking virtue is a straw man.

How about answering my question; did the poor - working and otherwise - not have access to healthcare before ACA?

[truth_seeker]

The ACA simply shifted a good chunk of private wealth from self-sufficient taxpayers to government's client groups.

That is the truth. It redistributed income/wealth from the responsible working middle-class without their consent, to the poor.

Oh, and if government involvement and regulation hadn't added enough cost and complication to health care/insurance it added much more.

I do not happen to believe that health insurance is a right. So I say roll the entire thing, back to a point that people buy insurance if they or their employer can afford it. Period.

Government sponsored hospitals can provide minimal, basic and emergency care to those unable to afford insurance or pay their own health care costs.

That worked for my parents raising five children, and for my wife's parents raising six children.

The result of 60 years of government subsidies to the lower rungs of society, has been to make them less responsible, because the negative consequences have all but been removed.

The so-called "poor" often turn out to live better, than the working middle-class.

And these so-called "poor" have learned to keep electing the same political interests, who keep them living better than the working middle class.

Those political interests publish deceptive statistics for employment, for inflation for cost-of--living, etc.

And they blame the very providers of the funds for their folly.

Guess what? Voters talked back last November. No more silent majority while politicians picked their pockets, while calling them names, demeaning their careers, their families, their values, lives, etc.

All I see in this healthcare discussion is words. No numbers. But insurance is a game of numbers. Premiums, deductibles, actuarial tables, experience and modifiers. All absent, instead left to play on emotions.

Simply stated, Obamacare promised it would save money, and it failed. That is the empirical result.

There is a saying" "you can't make chicken salad, out of chicken shite."

[Jazzhead]

Your comment about the poor not lacking virtue is a straw man.

How about answering my question; did the poor - working and otherwise - not have access to healthcare before ACA?

Could they go to the emergency room?   Yes.  Did they have effective access to healthcare of the same quality as those fortunate to have employer-provided group health insurance?   No. 

There is a vast gulf in medical outcomes between those fortunate enough to have health insurance and those who do not.   

[skeeter]

Could they go to the emergency room?   Yes.  Did they have effective access to healthcare of the same quality as those fortunate to have employer-provided group health insurance?   No. 

There is a vast gulf in medical outcomes between those fortunate enough to have health insurance and those who do not.

Now you're talking about quality of care. Thats an entirely new subject and one anyone seeking to defend ACA would be well advised to avoid.

[truth_seeker]

Could they go to the emergency room?   Yes.  Did they have effective access to healthcare of the same quality as those fortunate to have employer-provided group health insurance?   No. 

There is a vast gulf in medical outcomes between those fortunate enough to have health insurance and those who do not.

What justifies exact equality of the quality of health care?

Do lazy people who drop out of school, use drugs and commit crimes, deserve to drive Mercedes like rich lawyers?

Then they would be "equal."

[Bigun]

Your comment about the poor not lacking virtue is a straw man.

How about answering my question; did the poor - working and otherwise - not have access to healthcare before ACA?

[Jazzhead]

See my post #140.   And it is hardly a straw man to point out that too damn many conservatives - especially "Christian" conservatives - seem to think the working poor lack virtue and so their lot in life doesn't concern them.   I am not advocating equality of care or equality of outcomes,  merely equality of access in a system which is designed to favor those fortunate enough to work for employers able to provide them with group health insurance.

The working poor who are not so fortunate do not lack virtue and do not deserve your "Christian" scorn and contempt! 

[truth_seeker]

See my post #140.   And it is hardly a straw man to point out that too damn many conservatives - especially "Christian" conservatives - seem to think the working poor lack virtue and so their lot in life doesn't concern them.   I am not advocating equality of care or equality of outcomes,  merely equality of access in a system which is designed to favor those fortunate enough to work for employers able to provide them with group health insurance.

The working poor who are not so fortunate do not lack virtue and do not deserve your "Christian" scorn and contempt!

Under communism, they stamped out religion. You sound like one, with the same tactic--ridicule those who have religious beliefs and practices, and use negative words like "scorn" and "contempt."

Appear to be looking after the "little guy" eg. the "working poor."

One reason that Trump won, is the fact people are fed up with intellectual elites, regulators and allocators, etc.

The intellectual elites just "know" what works, what is best. Pelosi is one. She lectures us to pass the bill, so we can find out what is in it.

A couple of times down that path, and folks wise up.

You are asking for another time, down that path. But you offer no facts, no numbers, no premium SAVINGS, no deductible figures, etc.

You ask for people to trust you--You Know What is Best.

[r9etb]

See my post #140.   And it is hardly a straw man to point out that too damn many conservatives - especially "Christian" conservatives - seem to think the working poor lack virtue and so their lot in life doesn't concern them.   I am not advocating equality of care or equality of outcomes,  merely equality of access in a system which is designed to favor those fortunate enough to work for employers able to provide them with group health insurance.

The working poor who are not so fortunate do not lack virtue and do not deserve your "Christian" scorn and contempt!

Well said.  But really, it's not a matter of "virtue" or lack of it, in those without access to medical care.  It's a question of what are the rest of us obligated to do about it.

One alternative would be for people to die in the streets, which I think most of us would be against.  The other alternative is to provide the means for people to avoid such a fate -- in which case it all comes down to arguing about the price.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

@Jazzhead
You know if the government would give me back some of my money, maybe I could help more folks. I'm not in favor of abdicating my Christian duty to help to the government there Robin Hood.

[Suppressed]

How about answering my question; did the poor - working and otherwise - not have access to healthcare before ACA?

@skeeter

That's not the whole issue, though. 

We couldn't keep putting the burden on the ERs.

[CSM]

Idiot.

Really?  Not properly interpreting your intention makes me an "idiot?"  OK, gotcha.