AHCA

[sturg33]

Im confused. Were they death panels, or not? That's what you said.

I'd like to see some examples

[jpx7]

You're saying we had the equivalent of death panels before the miracle of ACA from your lord and savior.

You and your crowd are also screeching about the millions of people who are sure to die without the miracle of ACA.

Surely, then, you can easily point me to COUNTLESS examples of people being denied medical care because of lack of insurance. You've posted many memes and cartoons suggesting as such. There has to be thousands of real world examples. I'd like to see some.

I look forwsrd to you not addressing this post. The golfly way

There's being explicitly denied access, and there's being effectively denied access. If a doctor's visit or a prescription—much less something more major like surgery or longer-term therapies and treatments—is vastly too expensive for many/most people to even consider, that is effective denial of access.

Now I've said plenty that the ACA did far too little to address that issue, but the AHCA is decidedly a step in the wrong direction.

[goldfly]

There's being explicitly denied access, and there's being effectively denied access. If a doctor's visit or a prescription—much less something more major like surgery or longer-term therapies and treatments—is vastly too expensive for many/most people to even consider, that is effective denial of access.

Now I've said plenty that the ACA did far to little to address that issue, but the AHCA is decidedly a step in the wrong direction.

exactly

[sturg33]

There's being explicitly denied access, and there's being effectively denied access. If a doctor's visit or a prescription—much less something more major like surgery or longer-term therapies and treatments—is vastly too expensive for many/most people to even consider, that is effective denial of access.

Now I've said plenty that the ACA did far too little to address that issue, but the AHCA is decidedly a step in the wrong direction.

I'm sure there are examples you can provide on this if it was a pervasive problem (seriously, not being snarky).

What do you do about people who chose to not buy insurance and pay the penalty bc it's way cheaper. And then only get insurance if they get sick. How do you handle that?

And yes - I know your answer is single - payer, but let's take that out of the equation for a min, please.

[jpx7]

I'm sure there are examples you can provide on this if it was a pervasive problem (seriously, not being snarky).

What do you do about people who chose to not buy insurance and pay the penalty bc it's way cheaper. And then only get insurance if they get sick. How do you handle that?

And yes - I know your answer is single - payer, but let's take that out of the equation for a min, please.

I'm one of those people, by the way. I want insurance, and it's very stressful not having it—even with Arizona having expanded Medicaid to some extent, I'm not eligible, and the plans available to me via the ACA exchange are laughably insufficient on the cost/benefit scale. So the problems and limitations of the ACA are not theoretical to me—and yet I'd still rather keep the program in place, for now, given what protections and services it does provide, weighed against an even-worse replacement like the AHCA.

As for handling the faults? Well, taking one obvious solution (single-payer) out of the equation is a little unfair, since it's the solution you know I support, but I'll play. A robust public option is one potential improvement—something that always should've been part of the legislative package—along with little things, like the Sanders-sponsored bill that would've allowed folks to purchase cheap Canadian drugs.

But ultimately, obviously, I'd rather actually replace the program with something superior, instead of using "repeal & replace" as a smokescreen to pass even-hotter garbage, like the Republicans are currently doing.

[The Chosen One]

Trump said it was a very good bill. Very good.

[Runnin]

Trump said it was a very good bill. Very good.

Coming from him that's very faint praise indeed.

[Runnin]

David Brooks with 3 level-headed reasons the bill is so difficult:

1. Hard to take away a benefit already given by law.

2. Republicans are more idealogically divided that they thought there were.

3. Hard to pass a bill without a WH, which is effectively MIA.

[Runnin]

One take on why it costs so much by a doctor turned journalist.

[bravesnumberone]

David Brooks with 3 level-headed reasons the bill is so difficult:

1. Hard to take away a benefit already given by law.

2. Republicans are more idealogically divided that they thought there were.

3. Hard to pass a bill without a WH, which is effectively MIA.

Trump is too busy thinking up tweets about people who don't like him. He might actually veto the bill if it doesn't cover facelifts.

[57Brave]

“Never before, in the 15 times that I’ve marched in this parade, have I had people so focused on a single issue,” Senator Susan Collins of Maine, who rejected the latest version of the bill, said in an interview shortly after walking the parade route in Eastport, Me. “I think it’s because health care is so personal.”

On Tuesday, Ms. Collins and the few other Republican senators who ventured out — most of them opponents of the current bill, and most in rather remote locales — were largely rewarded with encouragement to keep fighting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/04/u...T.nav=top-news

[57Brave]

Steven Dennis‏Verified account @StevenTDennis

Steven Dennis Retweeted JohnCornyn

Frequent GOP talking point in Senate hallways: +22M won't be "losing" health insurance, they'll be "choosing" to go without.

[jpx7]

Regardless of how you feel about the ACA, the AHCA, or the state of healthcare in this country in general, can we at least collectively agree that this is pretty ****ed up?

[Krgrecw]

Regardless of how you feel about the ACA, the AHCA, or the state of healthcare in this country in general, can we at least collectively agree that this is pretty ****ed up?

You don't think the dem's are buying those stocks too?

[jpx7]

You don't think the dem's are buying those stocks too?

I'm sure many are. What's your point? My question was pretty explicitly non-partisan.

[Hawk]

I'm sure many are. What's your point? My question was pretty explicitly non-partisan.

But the article you linked was not.

To answer the question you originally posed: hell yeah.

[jpx7]

But the article you linked was not.

To answer the question you originally posed: hell yeah.

If the Intercept had evidence of Democrats doing same, they'd publish it. Their editors and reporters are a mix of socialists and libertarians, who've pretty well made enemies of both establishment ranks—Lee Fang in particular.

But I qualified my linking for a very good reason. Krgrecw was obvs not answering my question in good faith (though I'm glad you did)

[sturg33]

Regardless of how you feel about the ACA, the AHCA, or the state of healthcare in this country in general, can we at least collectively agree that this is pretty ****ed up?

Yeah.

I'd like to see a ban on members of congress being able to buy any individual stocks.

[57Brave]

Christopher Hayes‏Verified account @chrislhayes

At this point, it beyond nuts for the GOP to try to push through a healthcare bill in the senate in two weeks.

[jpx7]

Yeah.

I'd like to see a ban on members of congress being able to buy any individual stocks.

Agreed—but I think curbing corporate political donations is equally important, as those campaign funds almost represent a backdoor version of legislative insider trading.

A good example is single-payer in the Golden State. I know you, sturg, may be against single-payer, but the fact is a majority of Californians are in favor of it (and I believe you don't live there, so you can think about this in a detached and abstract way).

A good number of the Democrats who now enjoy a super-majority in the State Assembly either explicitly or implicitly campaigned on support for this very issue. Similar legislation passed twice in California in the past, only to be vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger; however the current governor is not just a (D), but an ostensible proponent of single-payer (who's own father, by the way, campaigned for a version of federal single-payer when running for the Democrat's nomination twenty-five years ago). And yet—probably to protect those Assembly members who campaigned on the issue, but don't actually want to have to vote on it (some of whom voted for single-payer when they knew their then-governor would veto it)—a new version of the legislation was just killed in committee, under the auspices of its needing more work—even though that's the sort of work done during the legislative process that was withheld.

Why has this happened? It's pretty obvious: because campaign contributions to Democrats in CA, from the insurance industry, have more than doubled in the past ten years. It's a disgusting bait-and-switch, where the bait is popular, good-sense policy proposals that garner votes, and the switch is to whatever keeps the corporate masters happy.