Senate rejects repeal-only ObamaCare plan

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by RootBeerMan, Jul 26, 2017.

  1. RootBeerMan macrumors 6502

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #1
    Well, that's that. If this one didn't pass, I can't see their other plans going anywhere, either. They need to just get with the Democrats and fix what's wrong with Romneycare Obamacare. It's not going anywhere and too many people out there are in favour of it remaining, rather than embrace a true, government free, free market solution. The Republicans just need to bite the bullet and embrace a bipartisan solution, as McCain suggested.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/343887-senate-rejects-repeal-only-obamacare-amendment

     
  2. BoxerGT2.5 macrumors 68000

    BoxerGT2.5

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    #2
    That's what happens when 20 million more people are dependent on the government. Mission accomplished!
     
  3. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #3
    See, this annoys me. Those 20 million or more people are saved from bankruptcy and/or death by the ACA. It would be almost trivially easy to amend/repair the ACA to be more effective and cost-efficient. Yet the GOP (and perhaps you) are more interested in some ideological principle of free-market, non-government intervention - that your willing to sacrifice countless lives, bankrupt families and subsequently damage millions of peoples' effective buying-power (either because they're dead, broke, or in debt) - and in so damage the Economy. So, I guess we're talking pyrrhic victories here?
     
  4. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #4
    Well said. It's like some people don't want to have a society made up of healthy, happy, productive, contributing and wage-earning people.
     
  5. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #5
    exactly. I'm not a die-hard Liberal per-se, but I like to be a pragmatist. It's plain Economic sense that the more healthy, happy, productive, contributing and wage-earning people that can participate in the Economy - the better the Economy will be for everyone. In fact, improving the lives of the lower-percentiles of the the population is the only way to increase GDP once you have near full-employment.
     
  6. vipergts2207 macrumors 65816

    vipergts2207

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    #6
    The free market works wonderfully in some areas, like what phone or car you buy, or where you purchase your groceries. The free market doesn't work for healthcare though. If you break a leg you don't have the luxury of choosing to buy or not to buy the "product" to fix it. You need treatment period and that costs money. It seems to me that from this point we have three options for how to handle this.

    1. A system where everyone has insurance and treatment is paid for from everyone's premiums (or taxes in a system like Medicare).
    2. A system where not everybody has insurance and treatment is paid for only from the premiums of those who are participating. People without insurance (either by choice or by lack of funds) then don't pay the expensive hospital bills they incur which then causes costs for those with insurance to rise because the hospital has to make up for that loss somewhere.
    3. A system where those without insurance don't get medical treatment because they're unfairly increasing costs for everyone else who is participating in the system.

    As far as repeal failure goes, I wouldn't say it's over until 'skinny repeal' fails as well.
     
  7. SoggyCheese macrumors regular

    SoggyCheese

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2016
    Location:
    Maybe UK, Maybe Spain, maybe even elsewhere
    #7
    It's healthcare. Literally life or death. Government SHOULD be involved in this, and not just regulating a marketplace. The USA should have universal healthcare.

    Pay a bit more tax and you won't need your healthcare premiums. It'll be cost neutral to you.
     
  8. AustinIllini macrumors demi-god

    AustinIllini

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #8
    The government is responsible for your safety and security. Of course they should be in health care.
     
  9. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #9
    ah, but that's the rub...some feel that no-one should have control over their money but them - consequences (or reality) be damned.
     
  10. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #10
    Well they've also now tried and failed to pass a Democratic sponsored "return to committee" option, that one got 52 no votes from the Republicans.

    Now comes the "skinny repeal" option, one that will propose to ditch mandates and medical device tax but doesn't reach GOP goals to gut Medicaid, trash insurance regulations or lower premiums. The language is possibly not quite cooked on it yet but it should be voted on soon if you can believe that, which I'm sure we all can.

    Of course there is no CBO estimate on "skinny repeal" yet but it has features that have been priced in before, so,,, premiums on skinny repeal are thought to rise by up to 20% in response to drops, the insurance market becomes less stable, about 15 million people would lose coverage. Doesn't support the tax cut very well, Americans aren't going to like it, governors won't like it, insurers no, so it sounds... typical. There is hope some amendments will improve its appeal.

    So coincident with this is a vote-a-rama period. where more amendments can be offered (by both parties) and voted up or down, not clear if Dems will participate fully in it or hope it fails and that a regular order process is attempted. The leadership warned Senators that voting schedules could change at any time.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...206f62-71e8-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_story.html
     
  11. nebo1ss macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    #11
    Not really sure why its so difficult to understand that no Health insurance system is going to work unless everyone has insurance and shares the cost. No one goes out and buys car insurance after they have an accident. In order to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions you must have a mandate. The idea of running out and buying insurance when you get sick is not feasible.

    A single payer system would get the insurance companies out of the equation and use the profits they make to reduce the cost. There is a dance that goes on in the American health care system which is a bit of a joke. The doctors and the Hospitals know that the insurance companies are going to reduce the payout on their bills so they inflate them. They insurance companies know that the Doctors and Hospitals inflate their bills so they treat it accordingly. The patient suffers because their co-pay then goes up. Don't talk about the drug companies.
     
  12. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #12
    huh? if that is the case then Soda should be banned or limited to 5 oz's or less, snacks should also be limited and you should be FORCED to regularly exercise while we are at it.............
     
  13. AustinIllini macrumors demi-god

    AustinIllini

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    #13
    The "all or nothing" fallacy.
     
  14. RootBeerMan thread starter macrumors 6502

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #14

    Hmmm...we have a single payer system already in place that we can look to and see how government run healthcare would look and respond to illnesses. It's called the VA and it's a horror story on its best day. My dad, a vet, never relied on the VA for care, always opting for the private market in healthcare for his needs. I've yet to meet a vet who doesn't think the VA is good for them. I fear that a government run, single payer system would be modeled on the VA and my family and I would be at risk of death at the hands of their doctors.
     
  15. nebo1ss macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2010
    #15
    Would it really make a difference if the Doctor is paid by the insurance company or the Government. Would the doctor provide a different level of treatment to you?
     
  16. rjohnstone macrumors 68040

    rjohnstone

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2007
    Location:
    PHX, AZ.
    #16
    What does security and safety have to do with healthcare?
    Oh that's right... nothing.

    Healthcare is not an enumerated power of the federal government.
    The Feds can regulate it under the commerce clause, but they have no constitutional obligation to provide it.
    They do however have a constitutional duty to protect and defend the country (Article 4 Section 4).
     
  17. vipergts2207, Jul 26, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2017

    vipergts2207 macrumors 65816

    vipergts2207

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    #17
    And what about Medicare? All you've managed to point out with referencing the VA is that it's possible to implement things in good ways and bad ways.

    Additionally those with insurance from the government have the highest insurance approval ratings.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/186527/americans-government-health-plans-satisfied.aspx
     
  18. RootBeerMan thread starter macrumors 6502

    RootBeerMan

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    #18
    Most of those people are pleased with their "government run insurance" because someone else is paying for it. Tri-Care (the military plan) is basically supplemental, unless you go to the VA. It pads private insurance and pays for lots of hospital care, but it's not that great. Polls to the contrary. Medicare/Aid are rife with fraud and lots of good private physicians won't accept it, because they don't get paid a fraction of what they do with private, free market insurance or just cash paying customers. The cost/benefit of these plans, (to the taxpayers who bear the greatest cost load) is negligible and, even goes into the negatives. The younger generations are being enslaved to pay for the older, who consume greater amounts of this money and care, and receive little benefit from it. All in all it's not worth the added tax burden, when we have a good and serviceable private market in insurance. Getting things back to the same level as they were in the 80's and 90's would be a better solution, but that would require getting the government out of the way. I insured my family in the 90's for a couple of hundred bucks (good Blue Cross coverage) out of pocket with no employer plan at all. That's what we need to be getting to, not a single payer plan.
     
  19. blackfox, Jul 26, 2017
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2017

    blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #19
    With all due respect, I disagree. Insurance works because someone else pays for it. That is the point. Yes, it pads insurance companies by giving them access to a larger market in return for conditions. That's usually called a compromise. That's usually how things get done. As for Fraud, oh the private market never has those problems... Also, again, the young and healthy do pay for the old - that's Insurance. A good-and-serviceable private market? Do you remember 2008 and prior? Also, things like the ACA access this market - stabilizing it. Looking back to the 80's and 90s is a pipe dream because deregulation of the Corporate Sector makes what happened then virtually impossible. You work with what you have...
    *edit* to think people would voluntarily participate in the insurance pool is foolish. That's why there's a mandate, or in the case of UHC, taxes. Sure, if the premiums were low enough, perhaps...but the only way to do that is to include as many people as possible.
     
  20. DearthnVader macrumors 6502

    DearthnVader

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2015
    Location:
    Red Springs, NC
    #20
  21. vipergts2207 macrumors 65816

    vipergts2207

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    #21
    Someone else getting benefits from other people paying for it through premiums/taxes is exactly how insurance is designed to work. If your house burns down and insurance pays for a new one, your new house is being paid for by others who paid premiums, but houses didn't burn down. If you had required expensive medical treatments while on your lauded 90's insurance plan, your treatments would have been paid for by the money other people gave the insurance company for premiums.

    Also, you realize that young and/or healthy people generally eventually turn into old and/or sick people right? Sure right now being in my late 20's I'm paying more into the system than I'm getting out, but in 30 or 40 years, the situation will reverse.

    The fact is, countries with single payer healthcare cost citizens less money than our system with no worse health outcomes than our system.
     
  22. bradl macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #22
    Why do I remember some statement or other about promoting the general welfare.. must have been my imagination or must have come from King George II. My bad. :rolleyes:

    Or may have constituents who would be affected or suffer loss of life without out the ACA, and these senators care about the people who elected them.

    But yeah, keep making it a partisan issue. Stay classy. :rolleyes:

    BL.
     
  23. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #23
    Please explain how people paying high insurance rates under the ACA are “depending on the government “
     
  24. LizKat macrumors 68040

    LizKat

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2004
    Location:
    Catskill Mountains
    #24
    Or, you know, just principled. It happens.
     
  25. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #25
    What did your dad do for medical needs while he was active duty?

    The military's medicine is great. So they can do it. The military doesn't run the VA. Maybe they should. Then again, it often depends where you go. My father was on his way to any appointment at the VA when he was involved in the car wreck that took his life. But he always went to the VA. Served him well for twenty years.

    But the active duty care was the best. I was, of course, born into it. Last used it about ten years ago during my own activation. It was first class.

    Just need to want to do it, and get the right people for the jobs.
     

Share This Page