The Trump Presidency

sturg33 said:
Because it's bad politics.

When you have the inept Bernie Sanders screaming that Republicans want to kick millions off health care, it's a bad look.

Just like with social security, it's bad politics... but it's not bad math
Click to expand...

why is it bad politics ?
 
jpx7 said:
It was all grandstanding and political posturing. They obviously never thought they'd actually be in position to "repeal&replace", and now they're caught scrambling, junk-in-mitts.
Click to expand...

I'm shocked--SHOCKED--at the mendacity.
 
Julio3000 said:
Since the increase in premiums during the ACA years have been less than the increase in premiums immediately-pre-ACA, I'm pretty comfortable with that. You disagree?
Click to expand...

I'm not comfortable with it... because increases immediately after were very high, and are now getting very high again.

The ACA required a whole lot of participation, and it isn't really getting it. The increase of 85% coverage to 90% is pretty pathetic when you consider that they mandated it by law and invested trillions of dollars
 
Seriously, y'all. Just say it. If you don't want more, less affluent people to have access to health care in preference to wealthier people having slightly cheaper--but still escalating--health care costs, just say it. That's what the status quo ante was. If that's what you want, just own it.
 
sturg33 said:
I don't understand why there is a need for a "replacement"

What was there before it? Have things gotten worse? Yes.

When there is a fire, you extinguish it.. you don't then replace it with a new fire
Click to expand...

That analogy pretends as if we had a sound and stable healthcare system before, one that adequately served the needs of all citizens. But we did not.

A better analogy would be: if a band-aid doesn't treat a bullet-wound, you don't shoot the would again for good measure; you go out and seek better triage.
 
Julio3000 said:
Seriously, y'all. Just say it. If you don't want more, less affluent people to have access to health care in preference to wealthier people having slightly cheaper--but still escalating--health care costs, just say it. That's what the status quo ante was. If that's what you want, just own it.
Click to expand...

What I want is very far from what we have.

But I definitely don't want a government mandate to buy a product. And I definitely don't believe in people subsidizing others. And that goes way beyond healthcare... And has nothing to with rich vs poor
 
sturg33 said:
I'm not comfortable with it... because increases immediately after were very high, and are now getting very high again.

The ACA required a whole lot of participation, and it isn't really getting it. The increase of 85% coverage to 90% is pretty pathetic when you consider that they mandated it by law and invested trillions of dollars
Click to expand...

unless of course you or a family member are of that 85-90%.

As designed had all of the states participated in Medicaid expansion your point would be moot
It was a political choice not a health care choice made by (R) governors and legislature
 
Julio3000 said:
Seriously, y'all. Just say it. If you don't want more, less affluent people to have access to health care in preference to wealthier people having slightly cheaper--but still escalating--health care costs, just say it. That's what the status quo ante was. If that's what you want, just own it.
Click to expand...

This is a silly argument. I don't care about rich peoplr. I care about my bottom line. The middle class is more adefected than anyone.
 
I'm gonna get real for a second. In the first few years of the ACA, I was a relatively well-off net payer into the system. Then my wife lost her job and my business suffered some hard times that necessitated my dropping employee coverage, which included my own. For the last year we've (the wife and our 5 kids) survived with the help of a subsidized policy through the ACA. Concurrently with that, my sister (who is a self-employed starving-artist type, married to a private-school teacher) had a child diagnosed with a brain tumor. That kid has currently had two brain surgeries and is now in a 6-month chemo regimen. Without the ACA they'd be bankrupt and out of their home. Without the ACA my family would be without health insurance, since we make too much to qualify for CHIP and Medicaid, but not enough to afford market prices for health insurance. So, yannow, sorry I don't feel your pain. When I was paying market rates for coverage, I didn't resent it.
 
thethe said:
Glad you were able to make it through so rough times.
Click to expand...

My family is fine. We have resources that mean that we aren't going to be on the streets. But that's because we're, I mean Ms. Julio and myself, fortunate enough to come from affluent families who are going to make sure that we aren't eating out of dumpsters because we can't pay our bills. That being said, I have a perspective that includes folks who aren't as lucky as I am. Someone in my position who wasn't in the lucky sperm club like me would be doomed.
 
Julio3000 said:
I'm gonna get real for a second. In the first few years of the ACA, I was a relatively well-off net payer into the system. Then my wife lost her job and my business suffered some hard times that necessitated my dropping employee coverage, which included my own. For the last year we've (the wife and our 5 kids) survived with the help of a subsidized policy through the ACA. Concurrently with that, my sister (who is a self-employed starving-artist type, married to a private-school teacher) had a child diagnosed with a brain tumor. That kid has currently had two brain surgeries and is now in a 6-month chemo regimen. Without the ACA they'd be bankrupt and out of their home. Without the ACA my family would be without health insurance, since we make too much to qualify for CHIP and Medicaid, but not enough to afford market prices for health insurance. So, yannow, sorry I don't feel your pain. When I was paying market rates for coverage, I didn't resent it.
Click to expand...

I empathize for your story... but I'm looking at the bigger picture. The ACA system - like SS and Medicare, is not sustainable and will not have sufficient funds to cover it over the long term. Then we will have catastrophe at a wide level.

We do have a problem that health insurance is so expensive. Why do you think that is?
 
I mean, I'm all most afraid to ask what your favored solution would be, but when you cut through all the bull**** the ACA question is do you think that the relatively more well-off among us should subsidize health care cost for the relatively less well-off.

Unless and until you can suggest a more realistic dynamic for widely affordable and available healthcare, that seems to be the question.
 
And, if the deafening silence coming from the party in power is any indication, there isn't much of a satisfying answer to that question.
 
Julio3000 said:
I mean, I'm all most afraid to ask what your favored solution would be, but when you cut through all the bull**** the ACA question is do you think that the relatively more well-off among us should subsidize health care cost for the relatively less well-off.

Unless and until you can suggest a more realistic dynamic for widely affordable and available healthcare, that seems to be the question.
Click to expand...

I don't believe health care is a right. That difference in ideology will never allow us to come to an agreement.
 
Ok. Let's say not a human right. Is it good politics and good policy to have good health care affordable to more people?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top